pull down to refresh

I used to watch Squawk Box every morning for probably 30 years, but not anymore. I watched this video and was really surprised that the flaws of the fiat monetary system is now freely discussed in MSM. That's good. Of course Dalio talked more about gold and silver than bitcoin.

136 sats \ 8 replies \ @BlokchainB 4h

It’s hard to take these shows seriously and this guy seriously.

Dude is worth billions let me go on this show and drop some “knowledge” on the peasants so they can play my game

reply
89 sats \ 6 replies \ @optimism 4h

So he's basically saying:

  • For wealth preservation, get out of bonds
  • For growth, get into tech adoptors

Is that a bad strategy?

reply
100 sats \ 5 replies \ @BlokchainB 3h

Yes! It’s terrible strategy!!

That doesn’t move the needle much

The Mag 7 and tech has been pumped beyond belief.

Bonds have always underperformed period!! This is a no brainer to anyone who has a net worth under $100M

But if you hate risk then sure this advice makes sense for the drones who watch this slop

reply
51 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 3h

We're totally talking past each other I feel... why?

Mag 7 isn't tech adoptors, I understand what he's saying as the businesses that successfully implement things like AI well and ride the wave of disruption in their favor - perhaps still Nasdaq but defo not Mag 7, with as only exception maybe Tesla (though to your point, that already has it priced in, so not very opportune, plus why is Tesla still part of Mag7 anyway?)

Bonds have always been a safety bet, not for performance but for reliability. My life insurance used to be 25% bonds allocation just for that reason, so that bottom line if shit hit the fan, I would at least get 25% of what I put in plus compound interest. But I largely reduced that allocation in favor of "boring" ETFs that have things like retail and distribution, since ZIRP, because that to me was the second signal that shit was breaking down - after the 2008-2010 bailout insanity.

Bonds have been the default diversification strategy ever since "modern" 1971 finance though. If he's right (and in this case it means that we have been right) and this safety is gone now, Dalio's message ought to make a lot more people that actually have these kinds of constructs think about their portfolio and see the world a little more our way. I think it is good if people see things a bit more our way?

reply
100 sats \ 3 replies \ @BlokchainB 2h
Bonds have always been a safety bet,

have they been? safe for who? over the last what 50-60 years if you were in bonds you got absolutely destroyed. Isn’t this part of the reasons corporations stopped offering pensions to life long employees. The investments they used (bonds) didn’t protect against anything

reply
53 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 2h

Idk, I didn't get destroyed, because the bonds just did what they said they would. It used to be the "certainty" because in general, AA+ and up rated govts don't default on their payments.

But you only don't get rekt in non-inflation corrected dollar terms of course, that's where the scam is at. It's predictable, but yes you are also right that you cannot build a pension on just bonds because inflation outpaces it.

I don't like that I have to defend Dalio here because I don't really like the guy, but, when he says you put 15% of your portfolio in gold instead of bonds, I think that's good. With one problem: now the buyer of last resort of US debt is gone, so if this transition goes fast then collapse can happen. I wouldn't want to be the last guy standing when the music stops on this one though.

reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @BlokchainB 1h

My beef with this advice is for the middle and poor class this really doesn’t move the needle for moving the economic ladder. If you are worth millions yes this is very good advice. The millionaire boomers who already made a buttload of money yes buy bonds until your heat is content but anyone who is trying to climb up and out of the economic doom that Fiat as brought to the world this is just bad advice

reply

I think that if you're up and coming, and you still have time for a career in front of you, then yes, you should not listen to Dalio. Or any of these shows. Or your boy Livingston. Better keep things simple, stack sats, and try to always make more than you spend. Invest what you can afford to lose, and you can take risks.

But that does not invalidate the statement made, it just changes the audience. Also no one is saying buy bonds. Everyone is saying: don't buy bonds.

Yeah. That's another reason I don't watch this stuff anymore.

reply
126 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 5h
but not anymore

What made you stop?

Of course Dalio talked more about gold and silver than bitcoin.

He mentioned it though, and I feel that in formulating it as a question ("Is money digital?") he avoided any display of bias. I like that, as there's no need to be biased about hard money. Non-toxic observations and questions are good for Bitcoin-as-money.

reply
186 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 OP 5h

I stopped because I have lost interest in stock markets and don't have skin in the game. You're right about Dalio. He was neutral about bitcoin while politely trashing fiat.

reply

The only reason to watch those shows is to understand the herd mentality and what they are being told

reply

It is fascinating to watch how political rhetoric can spill over into tangible movements in asset markets. The situation with Greenland although seemingly far-fetched at first glance underscores a recurring theme in global finance. When geopolitical tensions rise even among allies trust in each other’s debt instruments can weaken. This historically drives capital toward perceived safe havens and hard assets like gold.

Ray Dalio’s point on diversification is critical here and often overlooked in calmer times. Investors tend to chase performance in specific regions or asset classes when things look stable but the real protection comes from spreading risk across multiple vehicles and geographies before the storm hits. Gold’s current surge is a textbook reaction to geopolitical uncertainty but that also means those who had a strategic allocation already are in a far better position than those reacting now.

The spike to over $460 per ounce is not just a price headline. It is confirmation that when trust frays in the financial system hard assets regain prominence. The lesson is simple: geopolitics cannot be separated from markets. They are intertwined and ignoring that link can be costly. The prudent move is not just to watch these developments but to be structurally prepared well ahead of such episodes.

reply