iTulip is back?

[FRED]

Re: iTulip is back?

3 yes 3 post by Ej.............i think am going to "OD"

BTW where does one invest in Virzoom?
Mike

https://wefunder.com/virzoom

[dcarrigg]

Re: iTulip is back?

There's an element to P3s that always felt very zero-sum. If one cares about a government's balance sheet, I mean assets vs. liabilities, they're obviously a strange move. Something gets built, sure. But who owns it? And who benefits? It's like a tenant of a new unit paying the down payment on the landlord's mortgage because they have the cash but not the will or the credit score to get a mortgage on their own. Sure, they get to live in a new place. But they're still paying rent. And they're out the down payment. They don't own the asset. They're not building equity. They don't control it. They can't paint the walls the color they want or get a big, slobbery dog if they feel like it. And they're not getting the money back when the landlord sells the joint.

I mean, I'm not saying the federal government never can or should sell off assets. Sold-off land provided land grants to build the nation's public university system. Can all but guarantee that was a smart move. And even some of the funds that were shunted to private entities were, as universities have tended to be, rooted in a place and not-for-profit. So the assets don't have to be public necessarily, I suppose. I'm certain MA has benefitted from MIT and NY from Cornell, etc. But these are chartered entities with a public purpose. Building a highway to hand it over to some private company to slap tolls on it is a little different.

I guess the point is that it's pretty foolish to look at public assets as having no value. Debt to GDP ratios are well and good and often the subject of conversation. Asset to GDP ratios are rarely spoken of. If memory serves, Uncle Sam's holding ~5-10% of GDP in student loan assets alone. Uncle Sam has a lot of assets, a lot more than he had 50 years ago. Push a giant PPP scheme wherein you're debt adverse so you limit the debt side by foregoing ownership and build a lot without adding to the asset side, and I don't see you you really improve your net position much. But I do see how, aside from the bean-counting, you limit democratic control and public access to assets that are now governed and rationed by private entities beyond local control. Anyways, some of these deals I find somewhat reminiscent of a colonial kind of deal. That old taxation without representation idea, repackaged for the 21st century developed world.

[EJ]

Re: iTulip is back?

There's an element to P3s that always felt very zero-sum. If one cares about a government's balance sheet, I mean assets vs. liabilities, they're obviously a strange move. Something gets built, sure. But who owns it? And who benefits? It's like a tenant of a new unit paying the down payment on the landlord's mortgage because they have the cash but not the will or the credit score to get a mortgage on their own. Sure, they get to live in a new place. But they're still paying rent. And they're out the down payment. They don't own the asset. They're not building equity. They don't control it. They can't paint the walls the color they want or get a big, slobbery dog if they feel like it. And they're not getting the money back when the landlord sells the joint.

I mean, I'm not saying the federal government never can or should sell off assets. Sold-off land provided land grants to build the nation's public university system. Can all but guarantee that was a smart move. And even some of the funds that were shunted to private entities were, as universities have tended to be, rooted in a place and not-for-profit. So the assets don't have to be public necessarily, I suppose. I'm certain MA has benefitted from MIT and NY from Cornell, etc. But these are chartered entities with a public purpose. Building a highway to hand it over to some private company to slap tolls on it is a little different.

I guess the point is that it's pretty foolish to look at public assets as having no value. Debt to GDP ratios are well and good and often the subject of conversation. Asset to GDP ratios are rarely spoken of. If memory serves, Uncle Sam's holding ~5-10% of GDP in student loan assets alone. Uncle Sam has a lot of assets, a lot more than he had 50 years ago. Push a giant PPP scheme wherein you're debt adverse so you limit the debt side by foregoing ownership and build a lot without adding to the asset side, and I don't see you you really improve your net position much. But I do see how, aside from the bean-counting, you limit democratic control and public access to assets that are now governed and rationed by private entities beyond local control. Anyways, some of these deals I find somewhat reminiscent of a colonial kind of deal. That old taxation without representation idea, repackaged for the 21st century developed world.

Reminding readers that I'm not in the "what should happen" business. I have plenty of ideas about that. In the book I wrote in 2010 I offered many ideas, as is customary in the book biz: if you're going to explain a problem you need to offer solutions, no matter that they are unlikely to ever be implemented.

Here are iTulip we're in the "what's going to happen whether we like it or not" business.

I'm saying that PPPs are shaping up to be a major part of our future, not that they're a good idea.

[touchring]

Re: iTulip is back?

Reminding readers that I'm not in the "what should happen" business. I have plenty of ideas about that. In the book I wrote in 2010 I offered many ideas, as is customary in the book biz: if you're going to explain a problem you need to offer solutions, no matter that they are unlikely to ever be implemented.

Here are iTulip we're in the "what's going to happen whether we like it or not" business.

I'm saying that PPPs are shaping up to be a major part of our future, not that they're a good idea.

Yes, but who is going to build the infrastructure? China has peasants, Singapore imports South Asians to do the building which are paid 300 dollars a month in wages.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: iTulip is back?

Proposed future crisis response measures will be politicized like everything else is today, and action that will be urgent slowed by arguments along party lines.

International cooperation to react to a new global crisis emanating from the US will be similarly complicated by weaker political alignments resulting from antagonistic economic policies, in particular US-imposed tariffs.

The Fed is strongly motivation to keep it going if it can.

The latest pablum from David Brooks is titled "It's Not the Economy, Stupid." He could not be further off.

For 50 years the cost of health insurance has been the number one issue behind everything political and economic. The bottom pays the top more for less in the name of "free markets." It has been a spectacular transfer of wealth.

In Thailand 3,000 dollars buys a year of insurance even in your 60's with pre-existing conditions. If you can't afford insurance, healthcare is free. Insurance gets you faster treatment in more expensive hospitals which are like four-star hotels. I go to one that has a Yamaha grand player piano in the lobby.

Consider this. A year after chemo, my wife said, "I think I have another lump in my breast. By noon that morning without an appointment, she had had blood tests, a mamogram, ultrasound, and gotten the results (negative) to confer with her oncologist. Her doctor who is one of the best I have ever met, graduated from Rochester Medical School, (Google it if you think it's second tier.) I didn't even submit the bill. It equaled 120 dollars. Universal healthcare pacifies the average working person. The lack of it has created abnormalities in the US.

Single payer would have transformed the political and economic landscape of the US. I doubt anyone from Carter on would have made it to the white house. Sizable cuts in so-called entitlements along with another massive bail-out would bring people into the streets.

[bpr]

Re: iTulip is back?

The latest pablum from David Brooks is titled "It's Not the Economy, Stupid." He could not be further off.

For 50 years the cost of health insurance has been the number one issue behind everything political and economic. The bottom pays the top more for less in the name of "free markets." It has been a spectacular transfer of wealth.

In Thailand 3,000 dollars buys a year of insurance even in your 60's with pre-existing conditions. If you can't afford insurance, healthcare is free. Insurance gets you faster treatment in more expensive hospitals which are like four-star hotels. I go to one that has a Yamaha grand player piano in the lobby.

Consider this. A year after chemo, my wife said, "I think I have another lump in my breast. By noon that morning without an appointment, she had had blood tests, a mamogram, ultrasound, and gotten the results (negative) to confer with her oncologist. Her doctor who is one of the best I have ever met, graduated from Rochester Medical School, (Google it if you think it's second tier.) I didn't even submit the bill. It equaled 120 dollars. Universal healthcare pacifies the average working person. The lack of it has created abnormalities in the US.

Single payer would have transformed the political and economic landscape of the US. I doubt anyone from Carter on would have made it to the white house. Sizable cuts in so-called entitlements along with another massive bail-out would bring people into the streets.

Here in the States we've elected two Democratic presidents who promised us either "Universal healthcare" (Clinton) or "Single-payer healthcare" (Obama). We got something, which is pretty awful, but at least the government is on the hook.

What we need to recognize is that this industry is one that we can no longer afford to subsidize. Until then, it's looking increasingly like the US is the place that people of moderate means flee when they can afford to do so.

[bpr]

Re: iTulip is back?

Reminding readers that I'm not in the "what should happen" business.
Here are iTulip we're in the "what's going to happen whether we like it or not" business.

With all due respect, I'm having some serious doubts about what business you're in. You've posted more in the last week than you did in 2016, and FRED suddenly popped up for the first time since 2015.

Now you're offering SAFEs with an iTulip membership... SAFEs are usually early stage, and you've been at VirZoom since at least 2014. Valuation at $8 million... what was the valuation when you were courting iTulip members back in 2014-15?

I'll be frank: if you just came in here saying, "Things have changed, we can see a way forward on the macro, here's part 1 and part 2 costs $375," I'd be a lot less skeptical. But throwing in VirZoom equity claims just makes it seem like you have a VC matching opportunity if you can sell a certain amount of SAFEs at $8m, or something. It just smells fishy.

It's just weird. The trajectory of this thread's discussion highlights the focus on macro issues and how they affect micro. It has NOTHING to do with the intricacies of VR placement or the development of your company.

I mean, that's the stuff we've been talking about while you were MIA. What additional equity claims are going to be offered to members like JK and GRG and DCarrigg for keeping the lurkers like me coming back here with thoughtful commentary?

[Mega]

Re: iTulip is back?

ah......i need to be on Facebook?
Mike

[Mega]

Re: iTulip is back?

How much are you guys after per share?
Mike

[Mega]

Re: iTulip is back?

I must just be thick............i guess

[globaleconomicollaps]

Re: iTulip is back?

I must just be thick............i guess

I wuoldn't call you thick, just big boned. Have you considered an exercise bike?

[globaleconomicollaps]

Re: iTulip is back?

Yes, but who is going to build the infrastructure? China has peasants, Singapore imports South Asians to do the building which are paid 300 dollars a month in wages.

I saw this video about population growth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI
The take home message is that all those Asian people will not be available for cheap labor. The only remaining source of growth in population and thus economic growth in the world will be in Africa. You can expect a sharp uptick in immigration from there.

[touchring]

Re: iTulip is back?

I saw this video about population growth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI
The take home message is that all those Asian people will not be available for cheap labor. The only remaining source of growth in population and thus economic growth in the world will be in Africa. You can expect a sharp uptick in immigration from there.

What will happen is that America will get the South Asian construction workers because the pay will definitely be higher than the $300-$400 a month that they get in Singapore and Dubai.

https://www.thenational.ae/business/...k-home-1.17000

[Mega]

Re: iTulip is back?

I think we already got it!
The "locals" are not happy either.........

[Mega]

Re: iTulip is back?

Could i just send EJ a cheque via the post?