Yellowtail

I knew it was an example, but when I used examples you claimed my examples were not creating value, that's why I asked for a definition. If you define "creating value" as you understand it, I can formulate an argument about what does and does not satisfy your definition. If you want to define creating value as building homes, then no, crypto is not creating value, but there are people building homes with the money they make from crypto, yes?

That's hilarious. If you don't know, just say you don't know and leave it at that.

So everything but homebuilding is not crating value.

You can't show it's not a lie (because it is) so you regurgitate the same thing over again. Why do you refuse to define "creating value"?

All same size? What size? Low end tires are pretty low margin.

Yes, that 6% is one of the subsidies the fossil fuel industries get.

How are you foregoing the 4K interest?

Now YOU are saying that "everything won in crypto, someone else lost." too. Again, this is not true. For example, if I buy $500 worth of crypto, and sell it to someone for $350K, and they turn around and sell it for $700K, then I "won" money and the "someone else" did not lose the money I "won", so the statement is a lie. Again, you could argue that what I "won", someone will eventually lose, but that is a different argument. When I trade equities, the broker gets a cut, where is that money coming from? Again, please define "creating value" as you understand it. Without a clear definition further discussion is pointless. But you could say the same thing about a ballgame. What value is created by people kicking a ball around?

False. My primary argument with Ikn is that he claimed that : ...everything won in crypto, someone else lost. This is clearly a false statement, yet he refuses to admit it is false. Please define "creating value" as you understand it and we'll go from there. I never said it was or was not a scam. You are confused.

You equated buying crypto with buying the Brooklyn bridge, but conveniently ignored that the people selling crypto typically hold the "title" and the people buying can generally resell any time they please. I called your argument weak (which is is) and you claim I can't argue the facts and that I'm attaching you. Poor dude, I hope I didn't hurt your feeling, but if you're going take a position, at least try to support it. The comparison you drew was lame. Next it will be that I am too stupid to have a discussion with and you're just wasting your time so you're going to ignore me.

So what's your point? That they're both made in North America for the North American market and they're both junk, but the the one's built in Mexico are not quite as bad? I been in numerous manufacturing facilities in both Texas and Mexico, and worked at a couple/few in each. You?

I missed the reference? You were the one comparing buying crypto to buying the Brooklyn bridge, but conveniently ignoring that the people selling crypto typically hold the "title" and the people buying can generally resell any time they please. You sounded strong when we started, but your arguments just get weaker and weaker. I get it, you don't like crypto and you seem to believe everyone will lose money, don't buy it.

What is a "largish" order?

I only saw two that were exempt, both Thai. I think they should all be zero. So what about everything else we were talking about?

Mostly correct. In the same way that gambling creates no value, yet plenty of people make money on it. I understood staking to be something different I did not mean to say I agreed. What I said was that I don't disagree that it is a zero-sum game. What I should have said was that I don't disagree that I believe ultimately it will be a zero-sum game. It is not a zero-sum game yet, and clearly a lot of people are making a lot of money. And I don't understand how you could have read what I said and still ask that, but here we are. Is horse racing a negative sum game because the track makes money and the jockeys get paid? That's a silly way of looking at it. You should have sold it for a profit when you had the chance, as many do with crypto? I think most everyone actually involved people understands that. Caveat emptor... There is noting illegal about it (yet) and I have not seen any provider claiming it is without risk. It's entertaining to a lot of people, and entertainment has value.

That's all you have, really? I think you're leaving a few things out of the "first car buyer's rebate scheme" that was what, eight to ten years ago? In any evert, I agree the excise tax on eco cars (which I think is currently something less than 15%) is too high. So we're both for eliminating excise taxes. What about everything else?

You have not responded to our previous discussion, and now you want to move on to something else. You stated: "As for crypto, at best, it is a zero sum game, everything won in crypto, someone else lost." Again, this statement is clearly false. and I believe I showed it was false in a previous post. Before we move on, please either admit that you were mistaken, or explain your position.

The same thing that drives value shifts in most every asset class, supply and demand.

So it is your position that (in an arguably free market) supply and demand do not impact prices, is that correct? If that is true, how is it when oil production is cut, prices go up, and when production is increased they go down? You claimed that excise taxes added 25% to the sticker price of an entry ever car, do you have anything to support that claim or not? Who is the 7% fair for? It seems incredibly regressive to me that billionaires pay the same tax as the poor. Yes, when someone spends all their money to survive, they pay 7% of their income. When the rich spend 25% of their income to live in luxury, they pay 1.75% of their income. Yes, that's kind of fair, if you're rich. Again, do you have anything at all that supports this? Do you really think all the multinational automobile, air-conditioning, textile & consumer product companies would be manufacturing here if there were no import duties? Please provide some examples of what you are talking about.

The key word being could. Aside from the motor, nothing else in an EV lasts longer or requires less maintenance than a traditional vehicle. Batteries may or may not be cheaper in eight years, but clearly there is no reason to assume they will be. Best case, some new technology and economy of scale kick-in, but with it comes a huge increase in demand. And what happens to fuel prices? With the proliferation of renewables and EVs, fossil fuel prices are driven down. I think your assumptions about the tax rates are incorrect, do you have something to support them?

Yeah, my Bangkok girl of twenty+ years loves the beach, the mountains and the snow, and she has and will live anywhere with me, but if we're voting on where to live, she's voting for Bangkok....

You're right, the Tundra and Tacoma are both junk.

People buy Porches at 4-5 times the price. The import-duty/excise-tax policies here are arguably good. Rich people have to pay more for luxury, performance or ideology, while the non-rich have plenty of cost effective options available to them. What the rich have to pay helps subsidize the non-rich.

To be honest, and this is not meant to be insulting or even negative, but until you have lived as a couple for a year, or until you are married even, you may not really have a clear idea what your girlfriend does or does not like or want. I am not claiming she is being deceitful, she likely does not know. I am not at all trying to discourage you from moving here, or from getting married, I did both and it worked out great for me, but Bangkok girls are generally Bangkok girls. I would not buy a place unless we know we're both going to love it.

From the Nissan-Thailand website: THE ALL-NEW NISSAN LEAF | Nissan Motor Thailand