Tag Archives: finance

The $2K Stimulus, the 50-Year Mortgage, and the Fiat Trap

Posted on by
Reply

Why Americans Deserve Better — and Why Bitcoin May Be the Only Way Out

President Trump recently proposed a $2,000 payment to every American, excluding “high-income individuals.” The idea sounds generous, but it’s also a symptom of a much deeper disease: a government that spends money it doesn’t have—causing inflation in the process and actually hurting the very people who receive the payment.

The Math Behind the Madness

In 2024 alone, the U.S. government ran a $1.8 trillion deficit.
Let’s put that in perspective:

  • There are 128 million households in the United States.
  • There are 340 million individuals.

If we divided that $1.8 trillion evenly, that’s $14,000 per household or $5,294 per person.

So when politicians talk about sending you a one-time $2,000 check, remember — they’re already spending about 2.5 times that amount per person every single year.
If the government simply stopped wasting and borrowing, you’d already be thousands of dollars richer annually — without a single new program or “stimulus.”

That’s money our government already spent—above and beyond the taxes you and I pay. It wasn’t earned. It was created out of thin air by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve. Every time that happens, the dollars in your wallet become worth a little less. That’s why groceries, cars, and homes cost more every year, no matter how hard you work.

The Mirage of the 50-Year Mortgage

Now the U.S. housing authorities are exploring 50-year mortgages, following the path of Japan and even some European countries.
Japan went so far as to experiment with 100-year mortgages, often passed from parents to children. Did that make homes more affordable? No—it made them more expensive.

When you stretch the loan term, monthly payments drop slightly, but total debt rises massively. Sellers raise prices to match what buyers can “afford” on paper. The result: higher prices, higher leverage, and lifelong debt servitude.

The 50-year mortgage is not a solution. It’s an illusion. It’s another way to avoid facing the real issue: our monetary system rewards debt and punishes saving.

Where Does the Money Go?

When we spend $1.8 trillion more than we take in, where does it all go?

  • To foreign wars and endless “operations” that rarely make Americans safer.
  • To subsidies and bailouts for politically favored industries.
  • To bloated bureaucracies that exist to perpetuate themselves.
  • To interest payments on the national debt—now one of the largest single line items in the federal budget.

Meanwhile, our manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas, first to Mexico and China, now to Vietnam and India. Communities that once built real wealth are hollowed out. Young people drown in debt while imported goods fill our stores. The average American is left with higher prices, lower stability, and fewer ways to build lasting capital.

Why does this keep happening? It’s not just bad policy — it’s baked into the structure of the global financial system.
Because the U.S. dollar is the world’s reserve currency, foreign countries must hold dollars to trade internationally. That means America must constantly send dollars abroad — through trade deficits and offshored production — to supply the world with liquidity.

This is known as the Triffin Dilemma: to maintain the dollar’s global dominance, the U.S. has to export jobs, import goods, and print money. It’s a system that benefits global finance, not the American worker.

A Balanced Budget Is Not Just Accounting — It’s Freedom

If the U.S. government lived within its means, you’d instantly gain purchasing power. Prices would stabilize, wages would go further, and the value of your savings would stop eroding.
You wouldn’t need a $2,000 stimulus check—because your dollar would already be strong.

The truth is simple: either we live within our means voluntarily, or reality will force us to.

Now, to be fair, we probably can’t slash spending overnight without causing serious shock to the economy. But we don’t have to.
What if we simply froze federal spending at 2025 levels and let tax revenue grow naturally with the economy? Within a few short years, the budget would balance itself—no chaos, no default, just discipline.

That’s not austerity. That’s responsibility.
And it’s the only peaceful way to restore faith in the dollar while keeping it as the world’s reserve currency.
The other option—the one emerging whether Washington likes it or not—is Bitcoin.

Bitcoin and the End of Fiat Illusion

“I don’t believe we shall ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government, that is, we can’t take it violently out of the hands of government, all we can do is by some sly roundabout way introduce something that they can’t stop.”
— F.A. Hayek

Some believe there’s only one peaceful way out of this cycle: a return to sound money—money that cannot be printed at will.

That’s what Bitcoin represents.
It’s not a speculative token or a tech fad—it’s a monetary rebellion against endless inflation, debt-based growth, and political manipulation of money. In a Bitcoin world, politicians can’t quietly steal your savings through inflation. They must tax you honestly or spend less.

That’s accountability.
That’s discipline.
That’s freedom.

Even some in government see this potential. Senator Cynthia Lummis has proposed that the United States create a strategic Bitcoin reserve, allowing America to hold a real, non-inflationary asset on its balance sheet.
That move alone could begin rebuilding trust in the U.S. financial system—and might be the only peaceful way out of this mess.

My Message to Congress

If you truly want to help Americans:

  • Stop using debt as a crutch for broken policy.
  • Reject gimmicks like 50-year mortgages that only inflate prices.
  • Commit to a balanced budget and an honest monetary system.
  • Bring back real production, not financial engineering.
  • End foreign interventions that waste our treasure and divide the world.
  • Support sound money legislation like Senator Lummis’ Bitcoin reserve proposal.

Let the American worker, saver, and builder rise again—on a foundation of real value, not printed promises.

My Message to Every American

Don’t wait for Washington to fix this.
I urge you to learn about the problems with fiat money—how inflation quietly steals your time, labor, and savings—and to understand why Bitcoin solves these problems at their root.

The path forward is clear: either reform the dollar through fiscal discipline, or transition to a world built on honest, decentralized money.
The choice is ours—but the clock is ticking.

Send This Letter to Your Representatives

If this message resonates with you, copy the following text and send it to your senators and congressperson. You can find their contact info at https://www.congress.gov/members.

Subject: Support Fiscal Responsibility and Sound Money

Dear Senator/Representative,

I’m writing to express my concern about the growing national debt, inflation, and the policies that continue to devalue the U.S. dollar. In 2024, the federal deficit was $1.8 trillion—equal to roughly $14,000 per household. Instead of one-time stimulus checks, we need a long-term commitment to balanced budgets and sound money.

Please support policies that:

  • Freeze federal spending at 2025 levels until tax revenue naturally balances the budget.
  • End inflationary monetary expansion that hurts working Americans.
  • Reject 50-year mortgages and other short-term “fixes” that only inflate asset prices.
  • Support legislation like Senator Cynthia Lummis’s proposal for a Bitcoin strategic reserve, ensuring the United States has a sound, non-inflationary store of value.

Fiscal responsibility and sound money aren’t partisan issues—they’re American values.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your City, State]

Spain’s Silver, Japan’s Bonds, America’s Deficits: Why Easy Money Kills Real Work And Hollows Out The Middle Class

Posted on by
Reply

(inspired by this episode of Bitcoin for Millennials)

Big idea: Spain found a mountain of silver in Bolivia, spent like crazy, stopped building real industries—and the bill came due. The same thing is happening today, just with money printers instead of mines.

1) The mountain

In 1545, Spanish explorers struck the richest silver deposit in history: Cerro Rico, “the rich mountain,” in what’s now Bolivia.
A city called Potosí exploded out of the rock. At its height, it was larger than London or Paris.
For two centuries, roughly two-thirds of the world’s silver came from that one mountain. Spain looked unstoppable.

2) Easy money, hard problems

So much silver poured into Europe that prices began rising year after year.
For nearly a thousand years, prices in Europe had been flat. Then suddenly, everything—from bread to rent—started costing more.
Historians call it the Price Revolution.

Spain thought it was getting richer. In reality, its silver was just buying less and less.

3) The addiction loop

Spain borrowed against future silver shipments, funded endless wars, and built palaces to show off its power.
Sound familiar? Borrowing against your future is exactly what modern governments do when they run deficits every single year—financing today’s comfort with tomorrow’s labor and taxes.
And those “endless wars”? Spain fought them across Europe. The U.S. fights them across the globe. Different century, same playbook.

4) “Free” silver, “free” money

The silver was basically free to Spain—mined with forced labor that cost almost nothing.
That “free” flow of money metal fueled reckless spending and inflation.

Today, printing money is even freer. No mines, no ships, no workers—just a digital entry at the central bank.
But the result is the same: more money chasing the same goods, rising prices, and wealth concentrating in financial assets instead of productive work.

5) The wage spiral

When silver poured into Spain, mining and trade paid far more than farming or manufacturing.
Workers chased the high wages, and everyone else demanded raises to keep up.
That wage inflation pushed up local costs across the board.

It soon became cheaper to buy foreign goods than to make them at home.
English and Dutch craftsmen could undersell Spanish products even after shipping them across the sea.
Local factories and farms couldn’t compete. Spain’s economy drifted from production to consumption—spending instead of building.

You can see the same thing happening today.
Money printing and easy credit inflate salaries in finance, tech, and government while driving up housing, energy, and labor costs everywhere else.
Manufacturing can’t keep up, so we import the difference.
The result? A strong currency, cheap goods, and a shrinking middle class.

6) The next chapter — Japan

What if the next Spain isn’t America yet—but Japan?
As this interview with macro analyst Roberto Rios explains, Japan is further down the same path:
zero interest rates, quantitative easing, and government debt so large that the central bank must choose between saving its currency or saving its bond market.

For decades, Japan has printed money to prop up its financial system, even buying stocks outright to keep prices from falling.
That free liquidity created an illusion of stability—until inflation returned and the yen began collapsing.
Now Japan faces the impossible choice every over-leveraged empire eventually faces:
protect the currency and crash the system, or print the money and destroy the currency.

It’s the same dilemma America is approaching, just delayed by our global reserve-currency privilege.
The “free silver” of the 1500s became “free paper” in the 1900s and “free digital dollars” in the 2000s. The pattern never changed—only the technology did.

7) The simple lesson

Resources aren’t wealth. Printing money isn’t wealth. Making things is wealth.
When prosperity feels “free,” it’s usually borrowed from the future.

8) Today’s echo

Easy credit. Quantitative easing. Deficit spending.
Each promises painless prosperity—more liquidity, more growth, no trade-offs.
But it’s the same story Spain wrote 500 years ago: short-term abundance, long-term decay.

Spain’s “free” silver built an empire that rotted from within.
Japan’s “free” money is imploding quietly.
And America’s “free” dollar is next in line—just with better branding and digital ink instead of metal.

9) Bitcoin and the Dollar Endgame

What if Japan’s collapsing bond market isn’t just a regional crisis but a preview of America’s financial future?

In the Bitcoin for Millennials episode, host Bram talks with macro analyst Roberto Rios (“Peruvian Bool”), who has been tracking this “dollar endgame” for years.
While most people fixate on Bitcoin’s short-term price swings, Rios zooms out to the structural problem: every central bank is trapped between saving its currency or saving its bond market. Japan is simply the first to hit the wall.

He calls this dynamic financial gravity—the idea that once debt and money creation expand far enough, gravity pulls everything toward a neutral asset that can’t be printed.

Rios’s core argument:

  • The global monetary system has reached a point where debt can never shrink; it can only be monetized.
  • Central banks will print until confidence breaks.
  • When trust in both sides of the fiat balance sheet—bonds and currencies—collapses, capital will flee into something outside the system entirely.

That’s where Bitcoin enters the picture.

While central banks and institutions still view gold as the “neutral” reserve, Rios argues Bitcoin is the superior version of gold:

  • Fixed supply, instantly verifiable, infinitely divisible.
  • Borderless and digital—no vaults, shipping, or intermediaries.
  • Immune to political capture or forced demand (“fiat” in the literal let-there-be sense).

As he puts it, the Japanese bond crisis could actually trigger the biggest Bitcoin bull run ever.
Once Japan’s carry trade unwinds and the yen weakens further, global liquidity shocks will push central banks to print again—reviving the same inflation loop that began with Spain’s silver.
Each cycle of monetary rescue drives more people to seek an exit from the system itself.

From silver to paper to code:
Spain’s “free” silver created Europe’s first inflation.
Japan’s “free” money is collapsing under its own weight.
Bitcoin is the gravity well everything eventually falls into.

Tracking the “Political ETFs” — My Ongoing Experiment

Posted on by
Reply

Members of Congress have long faced accusations of trading on insider information — buying and selling stocks in companies they help regulate.
It’s a bipartisan problem: Republicans and Democrats alike have profited from privileged access and timing the rest of the public could never match.

That’s not just bad optics — it’s corruption.
It undermines faith in both the markets and the integrity of government.

To highlight how deep this problem goes, I’ve started an experiment tracking three ETFs:

  • NANC — the Unusual Whales Subversive Democratic Trading ETF, built around stocks traded by Democratic lawmakers.
  • GOP — the Unusual Whales Subversive Republican Trading ETF, reflecting trades made by Republican lawmakers.
  • SPY — the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust, serving as a neutral market benchmark.

My goal isn’t to glorify these funds — it’s to show in real numbers how political trading compares to the broad market, and to call out why this system needs reform.

Policy Context

This issue connects directly to Senator Josh Hawley’s proposal to ban individual stock trading by members of Congress.
His bill wouldn’t ban investing altogether — lawmakers could still own broad mutual funds or ETFs, just not trade individual stocks that might be affected by their votes.

That distinction matters. It allows long-term wealth building without the appearance or reality of insider trading.
📎 Read Hawley’s bill here

Performance Snapshot (Feb 10 2023 → Oct 27 2025)

SymbolETF NameDescriptionStarting Price*Current PriceTotal Return
NANCUnusual Whales Subversive Democratic Trading ETFTracks stocks favored by Democratic members of Congress$24.69$46.15+86.9%
GOPUnusual Whales Subversive Republican Trading ETFTracks stocks favored by Republican members of Congress$24.96$37.20+49.0%
SPYSPDR S&P 500 ETF TrustBaseline for overall U.S. market$408$685+67.9%

*Starting prices from Google Finance (Feb 10 2023, ETF inception date). Current prices as of Oct 27 2025.

The Takeaway

Both “political ETFs” have gained since launch, but that doesn’t justify congressional trading.
When lawmakers can personally profit from decisions they influence, public trust erodes — no matter how well the market performs.

This experiment is my small way to expose how close politics and profit have become — and to advocate for a system where leadership means stewardship, not stock tips.

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.