Offshore
Photo
memenodes
the brokest nigga you know will post some shit like this on his story https://t.co/VJJGI312oz
tweet
the brokest nigga you know will post some shit like this on his story https://t.co/VJJGI312oz
tweet
Offshore
Photo
Giuliano
There's a question in economics I've been obsessed with for 2 years and couldn't answer.
We all just hear people say how GDP growth will continue, how the rate of growth might even go vertical.
And I just wonder, how is that even possible?
I'll use VERY rough numbers.
Say that:
- There are $2tn in circulation. (The Physical Anchor)
- M2 is $20tn. (The Ledger)
- US GDP is $30tn. (The Output). 1.5x M2.
- US debt markets worth $50tn. (The Promises). 1.6x GDP
- S&P's market cap is $60tn. (The Expectations). 2x GDP and 3x M2.
- US real estate market is worth $80tn. (The Collateral).
$2tn in circulation is holding up all of that economic activity and theoretical wealth.
How can one envision a world where theoretical wealth's growth continues to outpace the actual money that's out there?
That's why busts hurt so much, and they'll hurt increasingly more as the gap between "reality" and "theoretical" broadens.
The reason why people say GDP will grow indefinitely is that "new, better products will come along. Productivity will be enhanced. Etc"
Sure, but what if future technology and businesses, by the nature of competition, have lower profit margins than nowadays? How does this translate into market returns?
And what if you create a better solution for a $100bn market but you end up destroying the previous $500bn inefficient one?
Will the $400bn just go somewhere else? I don't think so. I would think $400bn in theoretical wealth vanishes. And how do you start filling all these gaps? If it happens at one level, it's likely happening at many levels.
How do you keep economic growth when you have such destruction?
People will quote Schumpeter and say it's what has happened all throughout history, but I don't know if that's so right.
There's such a gap between theoretical wealth and real wealth that the only way you continue to patch things is by either maintaining the gap or increasing it.
And how do you even increase it when you are this stretched?
tweet
There's a question in economics I've been obsessed with for 2 years and couldn't answer.
We all just hear people say how GDP growth will continue, how the rate of growth might even go vertical.
And I just wonder, how is that even possible?
I'll use VERY rough numbers.
Say that:
- There are $2tn in circulation. (The Physical Anchor)
- M2 is $20tn. (The Ledger)
- US GDP is $30tn. (The Output). 1.5x M2.
- US debt markets worth $50tn. (The Promises). 1.6x GDP
- S&P's market cap is $60tn. (The Expectations). 2x GDP and 3x M2.
- US real estate market is worth $80tn. (The Collateral).
$2tn in circulation is holding up all of that economic activity and theoretical wealth.
How can one envision a world where theoretical wealth's growth continues to outpace the actual money that's out there?
That's why busts hurt so much, and they'll hurt increasingly more as the gap between "reality" and "theoretical" broadens.
The reason why people say GDP will grow indefinitely is that "new, better products will come along. Productivity will be enhanced. Etc"
Sure, but what if future technology and businesses, by the nature of competition, have lower profit margins than nowadays? How does this translate into market returns?
And what if you create a better solution for a $100bn market but you end up destroying the previous $500bn inefficient one?
Will the $400bn just go somewhere else? I don't think so. I would think $400bn in theoretical wealth vanishes. And how do you start filling all these gaps? If it happens at one level, it's likely happening at many levels.
How do you keep economic growth when you have such destruction?
People will quote Schumpeter and say it's what has happened all throughout history, but I don't know if that's so right.
There's such a gap between theoretical wealth and real wealth that the only way you continue to patch things is by either maintaining the gap or increasing it.
And how do you even increase it when you are this stretched?
tweet
Offshore
Photo
Dimitry Nakhla | Babylon Capital®
$UBER trades for a fairly attractive price $82💵
2026 EPS➡️ $4.25 (-32%)
2027 EPS ➡️ $5.11 (+20%)
2028 EPS ➡️ $5.92 (+16%)
CAGR at various multiples assuming 2028 EPS Est of $5.92:
24x | 20%
23x | 18%
22x | 16%
21x | 15%
20x | 13%
19x | 11%
18x | 9% https://t.co/CnF5y2GAdQ
tweet
$UBER trades for a fairly attractive price $82💵
2026 EPS➡️ $4.25 (-32%)
2027 EPS ➡️ $5.11 (+20%)
2028 EPS ➡️ $5.92 (+16%)
CAGR at various multiples assuming 2028 EPS Est of $5.92:
24x | 20%
23x | 18%
22x | 16%
21x | 15%
20x | 13%
19x | 11%
18x | 9% https://t.co/CnF5y2GAdQ
tweet
memenodes
initial pu*sy offering is crazy
tweet
initial pu*sy offering is crazy
Girls basically have an IPO at 18 now. tweet
X (formerly Twitter)
Goshawk Trades (@GoshawkTrades) on X
Girls basically have an IPO at 18 now.
Offshore
Photo
God of Prompt
RT @godofprompt: 🚨 Chinese AI labs just dropped a bombshell research paper that exposes why 99% of "AI agent" companies are building on broken infrastructure.
The ROME model + ALE ecosystem might be the most important open-source release of 2025.
Here's what nobody's talking about: https://t.co/EvPGFQA4Ic
tweet
RT @godofprompt: 🚨 Chinese AI labs just dropped a bombshell research paper that exposes why 99% of "AI agent" companies are building on broken infrastructure.
The ROME model + ALE ecosystem might be the most important open-source release of 2025.
Here's what nobody's talking about: https://t.co/EvPGFQA4Ic
tweet
Offshore
Photo
God of Prompt
🚨 MIT proved you can delete 90% of a neural network without losing accuracy.
Five years later, nobody implements it.
"The Lottery Ticket Hypothesis" just went from academic curiosity to production necessity, and it's about to 10x your inference costs.
Here's what changed (and why this matters now):
tweet
🚨 MIT proved you can delete 90% of a neural network without losing accuracy.
Five years later, nobody implements it.
"The Lottery Ticket Hypothesis" just went from academic curiosity to production necessity, and it's about to 10x your inference costs.
Here's what changed (and why this matters now):
tweet