The Future

Buy GME n AMC but decoupling from China is a good idea and we need to secure the supplies and I’m chinese btw fwiw.

This is crucial:

Keep in mind: Lithium is needed for optimal solar energy too.

--- Nuked ---

I get way too triggered seeing that these retards are trying to get an SEO link that will even be a 'nofollow' tag after

I find it funny that the left wants a 100 trillion green new deal shit, ban nuclear, ban natural gas, building panels and batteries that would require the biggest minining ever done in history but if an indigenous group in bolivia with a dozen alpacas lives on top of a litearl mountain of lithium and is upset about ming then well then I guess we look for more minerals somwhere else LOL.

couldn't you have done the same exercise about internal combustion engine cars before anyone had any, and yet US got to 1 car per household by 1960 and nearly 2 by 2000. Those numbers would have been impossible to contemplate at the beginning too

re: lithium supply, it's set to triple by 2025 from 2019 levels and lithium prices have crashed over past 3 years since peaking in 2017 (on peak EV demand hype) since it turned out all the miners got really excited investing in a lot of new projects that suddenly become economic at higher expected lithium price, and we actually got projected oversupply well in excess of EV demand pickup. am not even close to a commodities expert but the "omg not enough lithium" narrative doesn't appear to pass the smell test at least in the shorter term (next 5-10y)

On February 13 2021 08:16 Baalim wrote: I find it funny that the left wants a 100 trillion green new deal shit, ban nuclear, ban natural gas, building panels and batteries that would require the biggest minining ever done in history but if an indigenous group in bolivia with a dozen alpacas lives on top of a litearl mountain of lithium and is upset about ming then well then I guess we look for more minerals somwhere else LOL.

haha.. lefties are funny

On February 13 2021 14:37 Ket wrote: couldn't you have done the same exercise about internal combustion engine cars before anyone had any, and yet US got to 1 car per household by 1960 and nearly 2 by 2000. Those numbers would have been impossible to contemplate at the beginning too re: lithium supply, it's set to triple by 2025 from 2019 levels and lithium prices have crashed over past 3 years since peaking in 2017 (on peak EV demand hype) since it turned out all the miners got really excited investing in a lot of new projects that suddenly become economic at higher expected lithium price, and we actually got projected oversupply well in excess of EV demand pickup. am not even close to a commodities expert but the "omg not enough lithium" narrative doesn't appear to pass the smell test at least in the shorter term (next 5-10y)

I'm pretty sure i already did some rough numbers and posted them before, fossil fuel subsidies are around 5 trillion$ a year so it would work out to $150trillion every 30 years, (the GND ought to be $120trillion over 30 years). Obviously im being generous to the fossil fuel industry with this comparison since the actual cost is destroying the eco system and 'omnicide'. It is quite hard for me to understand the extreme level of irrationality towards left arguments on the environment. The 'how are ya gona pay for it' arguments don't even rise to the level of mental retardation. Then there is the big number syndrome, people pretending to know what these numbers mean, when they can't express it as a % of gdp when asked. (it's 2-3% of gdp from every rich country, per year). Most leftists i talk to are in favour of public transport solutions rather than mass ev production anyway.

There are a lot of false claims about mass mining and so many batteries being needed that it will cover the globe or something, and they have been debunked. Funnily i see these false claims come from both leftist and rightwing propaganda outlets.

One last thing, i'm not in favour of murdering people and taking their resources, and it's clear that no one needs to do that in order to save the planet. Apparently that's a laughable position to take.

On February 13 2021 14:37 Ket wrote: couldn't you have done the same exercise about internal combustion engine cars before anyone had any, and yet US got to 1 car per household by 1960 and nearly 2 by 2000. Those numbers would have been impossible to contemplate at the beginning too re: lithium supply, it's set to triple by 2025 from 2019 levels and lithium prices have crashed over past 3 years since peaking in 2017 (on peak EV demand hype) since it turned out all the miners got really excited investing in a lot of new projects that suddenly become economic at higher expected lithium price, and we actually got projected oversupply well in excess of EV demand pickup. am not even close to a commodities expert but the "omg not enough lithium" narrative doesn't appear to pass the smell test at least in the shorter term (next 5-10y)

Combustion car engine propagation was done bottom up, demand driving up production and the competition increasing efficiency, simply the market working there are many examples of like this happening.

I guess you don't know what I'm refering to, but I'm not talking about EV, ïm talking about the left's plans of full world-wide transition into solar/eolic energy, a top to bottom centrally planned poorly though out plan that would be the biggest infrastructure project in mankind's history by far with "150 trillion" cost casually tossed out, and what I found funny is that if this 150 trillion mankind saving plan were to step on "BIPOC" toes then well thats it, back to the drawing board lol.

On February 13 2021 22:04 Stroggoz wrote: I'm pretty sure i already did some rough numbers and posted them before, fossil fuel subsidies are around 5 trillion$ a year so it would work out to $150trillion every 30 years, (the GND ought to be $120trillion over 30 years). Obviously im being generous to the fossil fuel industry with this comparison since the actual cost is destroying the eco system and 'omnicide'. It is quite hard for me to understand the extreme level of irrationality towards left arguments on the environment. The 'how are ya gona pay for it' arguments don't even rise to the level of mental retardation. Then there is the big number syndrome, people pretending to know what these numbers mean, when they can't express it as a % of gdp when asked. (it's 2-3% of gdp from every rich country, per year). Most leftists i talk to are in favour of public transport solutions rather than mass ev production anyway. There are a lot of false claims about mass mining and so many batteries being needed that it will cover the globe or something, and they have been debunked. Funnily i see these false claims come from both leftist and rightwing propaganda outlets. One last thing, i'm not in favour of murdering people and taking their resources, and it's clear that no one needs to do that in order to save the planet. Apparently that's a laughable position to take.

The "5 trillion in subsidies" is a number that someobdy pulled from their ass calculating the long term costs of pollution due to fossil fuels, they are not fucking liquid real subsidies, those are about 20 billion per year in the US, so that money does not exist.

I actually agree that fossil fuel should be phased out quickly but it's a massive undertaking that needs to be done smart and not like the stupid leftist plan which is stupid because:
- Assumes ridiculous sources of funding
- Wants to ban natural gas as fast as possible (bad idea since its the least polluting hydrocarbon, it should be the last of them to go)
- Ignores sources of enregy that make more sense economically like nuclear especially for big developing nations.
- Makes ridiculous claims like full employment and respecting every community in the world, life isn't a care bear episode, a lot of people will lose their jobs, homes, will be displaced but it will also menefit many people too.

Who is talking about murdering anybody wtf?

-Free market fantasies arn't congruent with the truth. The success of industries has very little to do with economics and is mostly just politics. The rules of every economy are simply set by the various institutions and people exerting their power on it. For example, Germany and Japan would both be third world nations if it wasn't for the fact that after WW2 America needed rich nations to export to. The reason America itself is not a third world nation, and even had successful industries like Ford in the first place is because they escaped British imperialism, and the founding fathers were smart enough to disregard the free market idea's that british economists were telling their colonies to implement at the time.

-Toyota was supported by the government for a good 20 years before it became an international competitor actually, so not exactly a free market situation going on there either.

-Markets did not lead to a rise in research and development or investment in solar panels during the 20th century even though they were invented in the 1950's by the telephone monopoly AT and T (in their subsidiary Bell Labs), since NASA were pretty much the only buyers of solar panels due to their massive expense. (They were needed for spaceships). However R and D was sped up in places like Germany where they had feed in tarrifs. So under a free market system there would be no innovation in solar, since it takes many years of research for it to even be a profitible energy source.

-You think this is some centrally planned policy but that is a caricature, central planning implies it's some idea a bunch of beuracrats came up with and told the public they have to go with the policy whether they like it or not. Actually the GND idea originates from a complete dumbass called Thomas Friedman and he is not in government. The reality is that a GND would have a very wide range of policies that come from all over society, and the fact is people, environmentalists, scientists, farmers, city planners, ect, have been trying in agony and frustration to get governments to try their ideas for a long time now, with very marginal success. Whatever a GND would look like, it would be done because many many people forced the government into adopting it, the more force from the public, the less bad the GND would be.

On February 14 2021 04:56 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On February 13 2021 22:04 Stroggoz wrote: I'm pretty sure i already did some rough numbers and posted them before, fossil fuel subsidies are around 5 trillion$ a year so it would work out to $150trillion every 30 years, (the GND ought to be $120trillion over 30 years). Obviously im being generous to the fossil fuel industry with this comparison since the actual cost is destroying the eco system and 'omnicide'. It is quite hard for me to understand the extreme level of irrationality towards left arguments on the environment. The 'how are ya gona pay for it' arguments don't even rise to the level of mental retardation. Then there is the big number syndrome, people pretending to know what these numbers mean, when they can't express it as a % of gdp when asked. (it's 2-3% of gdp from every rich country, per year). Most leftists i talk to are in favour of public transport solutions rather than mass ev production anyway. There are a lot of false claims about mass mining and so many batteries being needed that it will cover the globe or something, and they have been debunked. Funnily i see these false claims come from both leftist and rightwing propaganda outlets. One last thing, i'm not in favour of murdering people and taking their resources, and it's clear that no one needs to do that in order to save the planet. Apparently that's a laughable position to take. The "5 trillion in subsidies" is a number that someobdy pulled from their ass calculating the long term costs of pollution due to fossil fuels, they are not fucking liquid real subsidies, those are about 20 billion per year in the US, so that money does not exist. I actually agree that fossil fuel should be phased out quickly but it's a massive undertaking that needs to be done smart and not like the stupid leftist plan which is stupid because: - Assumes ridiculous sources of funding - Wants to ban natural gas as fast as possible (bad idea since its the least polluting hydrocarbon, it should be the last of them to go) - Ignores sources of enregy that make more sense economically like nuclear especially for big developing nations. - Makes ridiculous claims like full employment and respecting every community in the world, life isn't a care bear episode, a lot of people will lose their jobs, homes, will be displaced but it will also menefit many people too. Who is talking about murdering anybody wtf?

Apart from the fossil fuel subsidies part, you're clearly just making this stuff up and havn't read a single thing on this, or at least a single thing Robert Pollin has written as that is the guy who's GND policy i was referencing and have done in the past.

-You havn't read what the funding plan is, it is very reasonable, moderate stuff, like cutting a quater of the military budget and implementing a pretty mild carbon tax.
-Natural gas thing is just a complete strawman, of course Pollin wants coal gone before natural gas. I mean he hasn't even talked about this because its so obvious, and he doesn't expect natural gas to gone tommorow. He also states it would be until 2024 until anything really serious is feasible implemented. This does have to be gotten rid of, and quite soon. There is no other option.
-He has a position on nuclear and doesn't like it. He bases a lot of his research off reports from the IEA.
-makes very reasonable claims about full employment, and he talks about the fact that yes lots of people will lose their jobs, but twice as many will be created in the green sector, and that those jobs are largely low skill jobs that allow people without college degree's to easily get. Here, again, there is no other choice. People in the fossil fuel sector have to lose their jobs, full stop.

So all in all you never bother to even read this, and basically use your ideological world view to invent the truth. GJ

As for mudering people to take their land and resources, that's just how the economy works or did you not know that energy companies and mining companies do this, and that they have a history of murdering environmentalists in hondorus, nigeria, papua, ect.

On February 02 2021 01:52 lostaccount wrote: decoupling from China is a good idea and we need to secure the supplies and I’m chinese btw fwiw.

Yeah.. Well too bad the people behind the Biden administration are cucks for China. Look at the big picture... In 5 - 10 years or so you guys will realize how Trump was on the right track all along. But it will be too late.

So should I invest in lithium mining companies or not

I have no idea, but I'd invest my money in something no one knows about yet.The boat to get on anything to do with Solar energy showed up ages ago. I don't know much about the stock market though so don't listen to me. I put money on dating app stock last year because of covid and i thought people would take to finding love on the internet since it's a basic human need.

I follow oil-price.org and they have a lot of news reports on emerging energy markets, whenever there's some new discovery for things like nuclear, hydrogen fuel, or whatever it is, you will find it there, because all the oil barons probably read that site to figure out who they are competing with.

There's still a lot of hope for fossil fuels as well, a lot of people in texas are quite happy about the potential energy in the mexico basin. https://phys.org/news/2021-01-geologic-gulf-mexico-super-basin.html
This conflicts with some of the recent leaks from JP Morgan about how they need to shift finance away from fossil fuels soon, so i'm not sure what to make of it.

Many of the best tech fixes around and cheapest ways to reduce carbon emission are things like more efficient cooking stoves or improved rice production methods, or regenerative agriculture. These things are far cheaper to implement than Electrified transport and solar.
In fact improved cooking stoves would reduce emissions more than mass EV production, since they reduce emissions from the 3billion people that cook over open fires by about 95%.

investing (unskillfully) in mining is kind of like slot machines imo... long term -ev, low quality companies that net destroy value over time, always in theory geared to the commodity price but in practice with poor execution and not always stellar management end up being less geared to upside in commodity than you thought but really damn geared to the downside. but any given stock in this basket of shite over specific windows can deliver multibagger returns

MTCH been a great stock in 2020 on the online dating.. owned it as well. not a forward looking view and not investment advice

On February 14 2021 05:45 Stroggoz wrote: -Free market fantasies arn't congruent with the truth. The success of industries has very little to do with economics and is mostly just politics. The rules of every economy are simply set by the various institutions and people exerting their power on it. For example, Germany and Japan would both be third world nations if it wasn't for the fact that after WW2 America needed rich nations to export to. The reason America itself is not a third world nation, and even had successful industries like Ford in the first place is because they escaped British imperialism, and the founding fathers were smart enough to disregard the free market idea's that british economists were telling their colonies to implement at the time. -Toyota was supported by the government for a good 20 years before it became an international competitor actually, so not exactly a free market situation going on there either. -Markets did not lead to a rise in research and development or investment in solar panels during the 20th century even though they were invented in the 1950's by the telephone monopoly AT and T (in their subsidiary Bell Labs), since NASA were pretty much the only buyers of solar panels due to their massive expense. (They were needed for spaceships). However R and D was sped up in places like Germany where they had feed in tarrifs. So under a free market system there would be no innovation in solar, since it takes many years of research for it to even be a profitible energy source. -You think this is some centrally planned policy but that is a caricature, central planning implies it's some idea a bunch of beuracrats came up with and told the public they have to go with the policy whether they like it or not. Actually the GND idea originates from a complete dumbass called Thomas Friedman and he is not in government. The reality is that a GND would have a very wide range of policies that come from all over society, and the fact is people, environmentalists, scientists, farmers, city planners, ect, have been trying in agony and frustration to get governments to try their ideas for a long time now, with very marginal success. Whatever a GND would look like, it would be done because many many people forced the government into adopting it, the more force from the public, the less bad the GND would be.

The sucess of industries have a lot to do with how politics interacts with the economics, of course politics can destroy a productive industry and can sustain an unproductive one with tools like subsidies at the cost of everyone else.

The post-war stimulus indeed helped Germany and Japan rebuild and derisked the global situation, afterall the social situation in germany post WW1 is what made them go to a 2nd one, however they were developed before the war, I highly doubt they would be 3rd world countries now, I think your assumption that dumping money into any country would produce a developed functioning society is absolutely wrong.

México got independence from Spain 20 years after the US got theirs and we have a history of left-leaning presidents, we've always leaned way more towards syndicates and state ownership of resources, mining, oil, transportation, telecom and even farming land was owned by the state and given to farmers, so please tell me how come we are stuck in the 3rd world while the US who allowed evil capitalists rule amock rise to the 1st world?

On February 14 2021 05:59 Stroggoz wrote: Apart from the fossil fuel subsidies part, you're clearly just making this stuff up and havn't read a single thing on this, or at least a single thing Robert Pollin has written as that is the guy who's GND policy i was referencing and have done in the past.

I was literally talking about "the left" nobody in particular.

-You havn't read what the funding plan is, it is very reasonable, moderate stuff, like cutting a quater of the military budget and implementing a pretty mild carbon tax.

I think everybody who isn't a DNC/RNC politician wants to reduce funding to the military. A carbon tax could be reasonable obv I'd need specifics, but I suppose we agree on this one too.

-Natural gas thing is just a complete strawman, of course Pollin wants coal gone before natural gas. I mean he hasn't even talked about this because its so obvious, and he doesn't expect natural gas to gone tommorow. He also states it would be until 2024 until anything really serious is feasible implemented. This does have to be gotten rid of, and quite soon. There is no other option.

Then we both are against banning fracking, good. Most of the left disagrees with us, people like AOC and Sanders want to ban it.

-He has a position on nuclear and doesn't like it. He bases a lot of his research off reports from the IEA.

He is quite likely wrong.

-makes very reasonable claims about full employment, and he talks about the fact that yes lots of people will lose their jobs, but twice as many will be created in the green sector, and that those jobs are largely low skill jobs that allow people without college degree's to easily get. Here, again, there is no other choice. People in the fossil fuel sector have to lose their jobs, full stop.

Fossil fuel sector losing jobs isn't my argument lol that is so anti-me I'm surprised you believe that, My point is laughing at the centrally planned full employment utopia that wont even dare displace some alpaca hearders.

As for mudering people to take their land and resources, that's just how the economy works or did you not know that energy companies and mining companies do this, and that they have a history of murdering environmentalists in hondorus, nigeria, papua, ect.

mining companies killed indigenous ppl in papua guinea, therefore I must also support killing when I point out the naivety of your plan?