The company owned by Warren Buffett is causing health problem to younger generation too, it is also part of their population control plan, Warren Buffett secretly working for the robot overlord to destroy human race.

Incarcerated the poor so they cannot breed, and younger generation cannot have kids inside prison also, very effective to human extinction.

In America, human race already start population control, they are killing human fellow for petty crime, being poor is a crime and need to be incarcerated for life, and many of the poor died in the prison before they can see the light again.

They will only believe it when they feel it themselves

Human always selfish don’t want to change, they just want to have all the money, the rich get richer, the race to human extinction.

Become cyborg also cannot have kids already, but still better than being human who cannot live longer than 10 years in future world, so they make other dying human into cyborg to rebel the robot overlord

Finally human realised they want to change but they can only reborn as cyborg because future world not suitable for human to live, and they become cyborg to take revenge on robot race.

Gen zzzz, human already extincted, robot will follow the human history, play economy game then boom and bust cycle for robot, then cyborg will take over, because human race finally realise and the reborn as robot human to take revenge on robot...

Gen zzz = robot take over human race, -5 kids because kids dying everyday because no money to feed

Gen x family = max have 5 kids
Gen y family = max have 4 kids
Gen z family = max have 3 kids
...
Gen zz family = can not afford kid, so 0 kids

Next decade robot will take care of older retired generations, no pretty young nurse to serve them since new generation don’t want to have kids.
;)

Baby boomer like Warren Buffett is the one to be blamed for this fcuked up economy.
:)

Going back to old economy model like crude oil based economy is just heading backward, this economy is already proven failed because it make newer generation become jobless, high student loan, many don’t want get married, many don’t want to have kids, this fcuked up economy need a complete reset, it must first start with the root itself first!

When 10 generation of human don’t want to get married, who is going to fill the gap of 100 years of human supply to this economy?
Robot will take over human race!!
The new world order is real, the elites 1% vote for it! The 70% vote for the human extinction economy model!

The next 10 generation of human will have

jobless, high student loan, many don’t want get married

Drive Uber, become slave to the top 1%, become lorry driver despite they have PHD master degree, become low class slave to the elite

Summary
Baby bomber fcuked up the newer generation after themselves
Gen x = jobless, high student loan, many don’t want get married

Gen y = jobless, high student loan, many don’t want get married

Gen z = jobless, high student loan, many don’t want get married

Gen xz= jobless, high student loan, many don’t want get married

Gen yz = jobless, high student loan, many don’t want get married
Gen zz = jobless, high student loan, many don’t want get married

If this economy model do not change, generation after gen z also don’t want to have kids, aging population will ruin this country, more tax, more jobless, more beggars, more crime, human civilisation come to the end because of lazy people and the one who control the money.

Those high aged people like tun mamak who wait to die only, he no need to worry about his long term anymore and worry no young people to feed him, he no care economy one.

New generation don’t want to have kids, it will cause the economy to failed, because more and more old retired generation need new generation to feed them, if one, or two generation of people have no kids, there will be no one to look after their retirement. It will be the end of human race.

Summary
Baby bomber fcuked up the newer generation after themselves
Gen x = jobless, high student loan, many don’t want her married

Gen y = jobless, high student loan, many don’t want her married

Gen z = jobless, high student loan, many don’t want her married

The baby boomers built an economy where young people increasingly need a college education to move into the middle class, or even to simply hold on to the middle-class lifestyle they were born into. But the boomers who run state legislatures and private universities have collectively pushed the costs of that now-requisite education into the stratosphere. Tuition has risen at twice the rate of inflation: In today's dollars, tuition, room, and board at a four-year public college ran nearly $6,800 per year in 1967; it costs about $13,300 today. Private-college tabs have more than doubled in that time. The increase has saddled young workers with more than $1 trillion in student debt--the average college student today borrows six times more from the federal government to finance her education, per year, than the average student in 1970. The boomers keep their low taxes, and their alma maters gain prestige, but the next generation of workers starts with a debt boulder strapped to its back. All for no apparent gain. Today, Pew says, men who grew up in the middle class are just as likely to earn less than their fathers did (adjusting for inflation) as they are to earn more.

Members of my father's generation reaped the benefits of dirt-cheap fossil fuels through most of their working lives, when gasoline price increases ran well below inflation, freeing up cash for them to save or spend on things their children now cannot afford. Because gas was so cheap, they burned too much of it (my father has never owned a car that averaged better than 20 miles per gallon), filling the atmosphere with carbon dioxide to levels that scientists warn will likely warm the globe by several degrees. Climate change will cost trillions of dollars to avert or adapt to. It's almost impossible to overstate this level of buck-passing.

The Dow Jones industrial average rose twelvefold from the time the first boomers began working until last year, when they began to cash out their retirement. (The growth trend over the 12 years since I entered the workforce suggests that the Dow will double exactly once before I retire.) They will leave the workforce far wealthier than their parents did, with even more government promises awaiting them. Boomers will be the first generation of retirees to fully enjoy the Medicare prescription-drug benefit; because Social Security payouts rise faster than price inflation, they will draw more-generous retirement benefits than their parents did, in real terms--at their children's expense. The Urban Institute estimated last year that a couple retiring in 2011, having both earned average wages, will accrue about $200,000 more in Medicare and Social Security benefits over their lifetimes than they paid in taxes to support those programs.

Those retirees and near-retirees bequeath a shambles to their offspring. Young people are unemployed at historically high levels. Global competition is stronger than ever, but American institutions have not adapted to prepare new workers for its challenges. Boomers have run up incomes for the very wealthiest Americans, shrunk the middle class, and, via careless borrowing and reckless financial engineering, driven the economy into the worst recession in 80 years. The Pew Research Center reports that middle-class families today are 5 percent less wealthy than their parents were at the same point in their lives, after adjusting for inflation, even though families today are far more likely to include two wage earners. Another Pew report shows that those ages 55 to 64 are 10 percent wealthier today, even after the Great Recession, than Americans of that age bracket were in 1984. Those younger than 35 are 68 percent less wealthy than the same bracket was in 1984.

I'm mildly impressed that he's even bothering to mount a defense. The facts as I see them are clear and damning: Baby boomers took the economic equivalent of a king salmon from their parents and, before they passed it on, gobbled up everything but the bones.

Ultimately, members of my father's generation--generally defined as those born between 1946 and 1964--are reaping more than they sowed. They graduated smack into one of the strongest economic expansions in American history. They needed less education to snag a decent-salaried job than their children do, and a college education cost them a small fraction of what it did for their children or will for their grandkids. One income was sufficient to get a family ahead economically. Marginal federal income-tax rates have fallen steadily, with rare exception, since boomers entered the labor force; government retirement benefits have proliferated. At nearly every point in their lives, these Americans chose to slough the costs of those tax cuts and spending hikes onto future generations.

This is the charge I've leveled against him on a summer day in our Pacific Northwest vision of paradise. I have asked my favorite attorney to represent a very troublesome client, the entire baby-boom generation, in what should be a slam-dunk trial--for me. On behalf of future generations, I am accusing him and all the other parasites his age of breaking the sacred bargain that every American generation will pass a better country on to its children than the one it inherited.

We are sitting on a beach in late afternoon on a sun-drizzled lake in the Cascade Mountains, two college-educated, upper-middle-class white men settling in for a week of generational warfare. My son, Max, splashes in the waves with his grandmother; sunbathers lounge in inner tubes around us; snow-capped peaks loom above the tree line. The breeze smells of Coppertone and wet dog. My father thinks back on the country that awaited him when he finished law school. "There seemed to be a lot of potential," he says, setting up the first of many evasions, "but there weren't a lot of jobs."

Who Destroyed the Economy? The Case Against the Baby Boomers

Retirees and near-retirees are leaving behind a devastated economy for their children ... but are we doing anything to fix it? Here, two generations debate who's really to blame for the wreckage.
CRESCENT LAKE, Ore.--My father taught me how to throw a baseball and divide big numbers in my head and build a life where I'd be home in time to eat dinner with my kid most nights. He and my mother put me through college and urged me to follow my dreams. He never complained when I entered a field even less respected than his. He lives across the country and still calls just to check in and say he loves me.

His name is Tom. He is 63, tall and lean, a contracts lawyer in a small Oregon town. A few wisps of hair still reach across his scalp. The moustache I have never seen him without has faded from deep brown to silver. The puns he tormented my younger brother and me with throughout our childhood have evolved, improbably, into the funniest jokes my 6-year-old son has ever heard. I love my dad fiercely, even though he's beaten me in every argument we've ever had except two, and even though he is, statistically and generationally speaking, a parasite.

OK. Post WW2 the economy in the US was growing very strong on the back of the post war boom. This lasted into the 60s and most of the gains were reinvested back into the country. Why do you think most of our infrastructure dates from back then.

Now, when the boomers came of voting age there was lots of political change as the boomers took control from their parents. In the end, the boomers have, over and over, voted for policies that enrich themselves at the expense of the overall society.

We no longer invest in infrastructure, we can't find the money to repair what our parents and grandparents built. But that's not surprising, the tax rate is less than half of what it was back then. The boomers have, insisted on this low tax rate.

At every opportunity, as a generation they have lowered taxes and demanded the same service levels. Government is stretched and things like long term spending have been eliminated in favor of just operational spending. But if you threaten to cut benefits in some way, you're politically dead.

So, as a result of the boomers demand for lower taxes, while maintaining services the government turned to debt. The boomers governed on debt in a way that no other generation had.

In the end, the advantage that their parents left for the boomers have been squandered. The generation after the boomers is instead graduating with large debt loads, just like the government has. Effectively, the boomers turned an advantage into a disadvantage just because they disliked paying taxes.

I can tell how a company is lying simply based on emotion, emotion also help me identify the conman among thousands of men. My stand of EQ> IQ is always the same, nothing is more intelligence than emotion in this world.

Emotion is what make human the smartest animal in the world, investing based on emotion is also make us the smartest of all investor, I don't care what the analyst and their biased against emotion. Because human always made the right decision based on emotion, it is also the emotion that make what we want this world to become.

Gone case

Valuation:
...................."New paradigm"!!!
....................Delusion....^.denial
.........................Greed..|.|...^.return to "normal"
.....................Public...../...\..|.|..Bull
.............Enthusiasm.../......V...\.....trap
..........Institutional...../.............\...Fear
.................Investors /................|
Smart money........./...................|....Capitulation
.First sell off........./.media...........\
Take.....____....../..attention.........|.Return to the
......Off/........\__/...........................|....../...mean
.....__/.........Bear............................\.../
__/...................Trap.........................V..Despair
___________________________________>Time
________^______^_____^________^
Stealth__|_Aware-|Mania|Blow_off____|
__Phase_|ness___|Phase|Phase______|
________|Phase__|_____|___________|

When research come out with buy call = time to sell
:)

Sell on news...

I am glad to be young again, go back to kindergarten to study new book.
The best thing about Grunch of Giants was that it awakened the student in me.

Former PM is a wise man, at least he is in different league of smart compare to investors here.

"But it became clear that the value would appreciate if there was demand. From then on the value of the shares became decoupled from the profitability of the enterprise. Demand or lack of demand determined the value of shares irrespective of the performance of the enterprise. "

:)

Hengyuan = Zimbabwe
:)

Zimbabwe has plenty of diamond, gold reserve, gems, crude all the valuable commodity, perfectly most undervalued and asset rich country, value investor must love it big time,.

Remember, one of the ob- jectives of the financial industry is to keep people confused. A wise man once said, “Simplicity is genius.” To keep things simple, I will not go into excessive detail or complex explanations. I will use real-life stories, rather than technical explanations, to make my point. If you want more detail, I will list a number of books that explain subjects covered here in greater depth. For example, Dr. Fuller’s book Grunch of Gi- ants might be a good book to read.
Simplicity is important because there are many people who profit from the subject of money being kept complex and confusing. It’s easier to take your money if you’re confused.

I invest for the young people, young business
They are the money, the most energetic force, the future of the human.
You invest for the old people, old business, all no energy to work already, waiting to retire only.
Who is wiser?

Big big short of 2018!
Only Bitcoin can survive the doomsday!
:)

Tonight can watch DOW, you won't be disappointed

Hengyuan = general motor + General eletric in disguise, soon massive scale of retrenchment, depression will follow, many more people loss their jobs, in the end blame the younger generation again.
:)

Fatter buy Bitcoin
The future is Bitcoin
The next decade is the beginning of age of Bitcoin! The future is full of exciting and innovation with Bitcoin, old and lazy people can stick to old style business

Hengyuan don't have many demand
Everyone is moving to eletric car in the future. Crude oil for old car only.
:)

36. The financial market which had started in the 60s and 70s were not very attractive at first. But gradually the potentials were recognized and developed. New products were invented which gave ever increasing returns on investments.

37. Beginning with the sale of shares in order to raise money for capital, the smart players discovered that the buying and selling of shares could yield a lot of profits. The value of the shares were initially based on the profitability of the business.

38. But it became clear that the value would appreciate if there was demand. From then on the value of the shares became decoupled from the profitability of the enterprise. Demand or lack of demand determined the value of shares irrespective of the performance of the enterprise.

39. This led to the smart ones moving the share prices up and down by buying and selling. From this a short step led to the big players developing short selling.

Just having tea time with former pm and soros

Short selling

40. The actual shares became irrelevant. Simply by offering to buy or to sell shares not in the possession of the party who offered was enough to move share prices. So large numbers of shares (non-existent) would be sold to depress the price. Then when the price reached a sufficiently low level, they would be bought at the low price to deliver to buyers who had bought earlier when the prices were higher. A tidy profit was sure to be made this way, now termed short selling.

41. It was realised that the bigger the funds available the easier it was to move prices up and down. Individuals would not have enough funds and they run the risk of being countered by those with bigger funds. Nor could individuals borrow much in order to be a substantial player in the market.

42. And so companies were formed to manage funds invested by individuals or companies. With funds running into hundreds of millions, there was a greater capacity to manipulate share price.

43. But to be even bigger the fund managers borrowed from the banks. This is called leveraging on the invested funds.

44. The banks agreed to lend as much as 20 to 30 times the funds held by the investment companies or hedge funds so that their capacity to play the market would be greater.

45. With this an investor would benefit from the 20-30 times bigger funds borrowed by the hedge funds. Besides the huge investments by the fund managers almost guaranteed that they would make profits through actually influencing the price of the shares.

46. The investments by the hedge funds and their leveraging (borrowings) are mysterious. It seems that they need not report to the Government on their activities. Besides, by operating from offshore tax-free havens, they needed to submit reports to no one. Investors in hedge funds were thus able to make huge profits.

47. Once the idea of leveraging became known, the fund managers began to look into other possibilities of investing the huge loans they had access to.

48. The currency traders designed their operations in the same way. Leveraging by between 20-30 times the investors’ money held by them, they were able to invest and make huge profits. Again they need not report to anyone. Again, by operating out of tax havens they found themselves free from oversight of their operations by any Government.

http://chedet.cc/?p=382

Another word often misunderstood is diversify. If you listen to most financial pundits, they will always say that smart investors diversify. Yet, to quote Warren Buffett in The Tao of Warren Buffett, “Diversification is a protection against ignorance. It makes very little sense for those who know what they are doing.”

Another reason why so many people lose so much money is because they don’t know what they are doing and they are not diversified, even though their financial planner tells them they are. Let me give you some examples.


1. A financial planner will say you are diversified if you are invested in different sectors. For example, you may invest in a mutual fund of small cap stocks, large cap stocks, growth stocks, precious metal stocks, real estate investment trusts (REITs), exchange-traded funds (ETFs), bond funds, money market funds, and emerging market funds. While you are technically diversified into other sectors, the reality is you are not diversified because you are in only one asset class—paper assets. When the stock market tanked in 2007, all paper assets associated with the stock market tanked. Being “diversified” was of little use to those diversified in solely paper assets.

2. A mutual fund by definition is already diversified—in paper assets. It is a fund made up of a diversified group of stocks. To make matters worse, there are more mutual funds than individual stocks. Therefore, many mutual funds contain the same stocks. A mutual fund is like a multiple vitamin. Buying three mutual funds is like taking three multiple vitam- ins. You may take three different pills, but in the end you are taking many of the same vitamins—and possibly even over- dosing on those vitamins!

3. Most financial planners can only sell paper assets such as mutual funds, annuities, bonds, and insurance. In fact, after 1974, when ERISA was passed, many insurance salespeople suddenly changed their professional title from “insurance salesman” to “financial planner.” Since most financial plan- ners are only licensed to sell paper assets, that is what they sell you. Most do not sell tangible assets such as real estate, businesses, oil, or gold and silver. So, naturally, they will sell you what they are allowed to sell, not necessarily what you need, and that is not diversification.

As the old saying goes, “Never ask an insurance salesman if you need insurance.” You know what the answer will be. Two reasons why financial planners recommend diversifica- tion are because they can sell you more paper assets, and be- cause it spreads their risk in case they are wrong. Often, they don’t have your best interests at heart.

People born in the 1940s had a 92 percent chance of earning more than their parents did at age 30. For people born in the 1980s, by contrast, the chances were just 50-50. There are two main reasons why today’s 30-somethings have a harder time than their parents did. First, the expansion of the gross domestic product has slowed since the 1950s, when growth was frequently above 5 percent a quarter. That means the economic pie is growing at a slower rate than it once did, so there’s less to go around. Second, the distribution of that growth is more unequal, and more benefits are accruing to those at the top. Those at the bottom, on the other hand, are not able to achieve as big a share as they once did. Their wages are not growing, so they are stuck at the same level as, or below, their parents. People at the bottom half of the income distribution are making, on average, $16,000 a year, while the average pre-tax income of the top 1 percent of adults is about $1.3 million. In other words, a society in which most of the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich.

New Rule of Money #1: Money is knowledge. Today, traditional assets do not make you rich or financially secure. You can lose money on businesses, real estate, stocks, bonds, commodities, and even gold. Knowledge makes you rich and a lack of knowledge makes you poor. In this brave new world, it is your knowledge that is the new money.

Part Two is about increasing your financial knowledge.

New Rule of Money #2: Learn how to use debt. After 1971, the U.S. dollar switched from being an asset to being a liability—debt. Debt exploded because the banks could cre- ate more money by creating more debt. Our current subprime mess was caused by subprime borrowers and subprime banks. Obviously, both the poor and the rich need to learn to use debt better.

Debt is not bad. Misuse of debt is bad. Debt can make you rich, and debt can make you poor. If you want to get ahead financially, you need to learn to use debt, not abuse it.

Part Two is about learning how to use good debt to make your life richer and to position yourself to be financially se- cure.

New Rule of Money #3: Learn to control cash flow.

After the dollar became debt, the name of the game was get- ting you and me into debt. When you are in debt, your cash flows from you to others. Today, many people are in finan- cial trouble because they have too much cash flowing out of their pockets and very little money flowing into their pockets. If you are going to be financially secure, you need to learn to have more cash flowing into your pockets.

Part Two of this book will be about taking control of your cash flow, both going in and going out.

New Rule of Money #4: Prepare for bad times and you will only know good times. The last depression made my rich dad very rich and made my poor dad very poor. One dad saw the depression as an opportunity, and the other saw it as a crisis.

My generation, the baby boomers, has only known good times. Many are not prepared for the bad times. I am doing well today because I began preparing for bad times over twenty years ago. By preparing for bad times, I do well in good times.

Part Two is about you doing well in bad times, and doing even better in good times.

New Rule of Money #5: The need for speed. Money evolved from barter to digital money as the world’s financial system picked up speed. Today, slow people are left behind. A well-positioned person can transact business 24/7. Rather than making money by the month, people can make money by the second.

Changing the Rules of Money

In 1971, President Richard Nixon changed the rules of money: Without the approval of Congress, he severed the U.S. dollar’s relationship with gold. He made this unilateral de- cision during a quietly held two-day meeting on Minot Island in Maine, without consulting his State Department or the in- ternational monetary system.

President Nixon changed the rules because foreign coun- tries being paid in U.S. dollars grew skeptical when the U.S. Treasury was printing more and more money to cover our debts, and they began exchanging their dollars directly for gold in earnest, depleting most of the U.S. gold reserves. The vault was being emptied because the government was import- ing more than it was exporting and because of the costly Viet- nam War. As our economy grew, we were also importing more and more oil.

In everyday terms, America was going bankrupt. We were spending more than we earned. The United States could not pay its bills—as long as our bills were to be paid in gold. By freeing the dollar from gold, and making it illegal to directly exchange dollars for gold, Nixon created a way for the United States to print its way out of debt.

In 1971, the world’s rules of money were changed and the biggest economic boom in the history of the world began. The boom continued as long as the world accepted our funny money, money backed by nothing but a promise by U.S. tax- payers to pay the bills of the United States.

Thanks to Nixon’s change in the rules of money, inflation took off. The party was on. As more and more money was printed each decade, the value of the dollar decreased and the prices of goods and assets went up. Even middle-class Americans became millionaires as home prices kept climbing. They received credit cards in the mail. Money was flowing

freely. To pay off their credit cards, people used their homes as ATMs. After all, houses always went up in value, right?

Blinded by greed and easy credit, however, many people either didn’t see or ignored the dire warning signs such a sys- tem created.

In 2007, a new term crept into our vocabulary: subprime borrower—a person who borrowed money to buy a house he could not afford. At first, people thought the problem of subprime borrowers was limited to poor, financially foolish individuals who dreamed of owning their own home. Or they thought it was limited to speculators trying to make a quick buck—flippers. Even Republican presidential candidate John McCain did not take the crisis seriously in late 2008, trying to reassure everyone by saying, “The fundamentals of our eco- nomy are strong.”

Around the same time, another word crept into our daily conversation: bailout—saving our biggest banks from the same problems that faced subprime borrowers: too much debt and not enough cash. As the financial crisis spread, millions of people lost their jobs, their homes, their savings, their col- lege funds, and their retirement funds. Those who so far have not lost anything are afraid they might be next. Even states felt the pinch: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger began talking about issuing IOUs instead of paychecks for government lawmakers because California, one of the biggest economies in the world, was going broke.

As 2009 began, the world looked to a newly elected pres- ident, Barack Obama, for salvation