It would seem to be a sensible strategy. I've been surprised that this isn't more common. Whilst big investors can have a tendency to be risk-averse, which might keep them away from bitcoin, it's also true that every investment is a gamble, so why not test the waters by buying in with at least (in percentage terms) a small position? Perhaps it's just that they don't want any negative PR from associating with what is still sometimes seen in the mainstream as a counter-cultural and even potentially criminal asset class.

Yes. This is a key driver of inequality, and is often overlooked. The more money you have to invest, the better the opportunities that are available to you. The highest yielding returns are available only to those who are putting in the highest amounts of money. Obviously this system is self-perpetuating.



https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/8/16112368/piketty-saez-zucman-income-growth-inequality-stagnation-chart

Me too. Just when you think the situation can't get any more absurd, it does.
I would have voted for a sixth option: Covid, having invaded Trump, decides that humans are a toxic environment, and retreats back into the wilderness, thus ending the pandemic.


I don't really understand why Pelosi is bringing up this 25th amendment thing now. It seems like it would be counterproductive, and just entrench Trump's supporters. Certainly there's no chance of him being removed for being unfit to serve - we all knew he was unfit prior to his election.

It's the men's final that everyone predicted... but who is the favourite? If anyone is interested, I've gathered the relevant stats:

• Nadal has got to the final without dropping a set, but Djokovic has dropped 3 sets as he faced tougher opponents in each round - 1 in the quarters, 2 in the semis.
• Djokovic is undefeated in 2020, winning 37 matches (ignoring the US disqualification), whereas Nadal has lost a few times this year.
• Nadal has lost only twice in fifteen years at the French... but one of those losses, in 2015, was in straight sets to Djokovic.
• ... But this was a rare off-year for Nadal; he was only seeded sixth.
• The overall record in head-to-heads at the French is 6-1 to Nadal, but they haven't met here since that 2015 match.

Which is the crucial factor here? It could of course go either way. I have favoured Nadal throughout the tournament, but now I'm torn.

F1 first practice at the Nurburgring has been hit by fog, so there will be no cars running. There is certainly a chance that weather will be a factor for the last few European races of the season, as we head into autumn. It looks like 40% chance of rain at the race this weekend (https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/forecast/u0uw0pgu0#?date=2020-10-11). Whilst rain does add an element of unpredictability to races, it's also true that it really helps to highlight the differences in talent between the various drivers. Hamilton is always good in rain, and you'd expect Verstappen to be right up there as well. Perhaps a bad weekend looming for Bottas?

Certainly in the past Europe has had a huge impact on the US. At present, though? I'm not convinced. I think you are downplaying the importance and strength of the US here. Everyone in the world always has eyes on the US as the leading Western nation, and more so since the rise of China as a second superpower. The US stands by itself, and Europe, particularly the UK, follows along behind on the path the US sets.

But it is important - for anything - to view it from the outside as well. I'm not trying to use those surveys to belittle Trump, I'm simply highlighting the disparity between how Trump is viewed in Europe, and how he's viewed inside the US, and suggesting reasons for the huge difference. I do think the primary reason is his isolationism and withdrawing the US from its role as a global leader. Europe since WW2 has become accustomed to having the US as its defender; the future is now less certain. Xenophobia is on the rise everywhere, as is racism. The US may be retreating from the world stage, but it has lost none of its internal power, and its power to lead and influence other nations. What the US does doesn't just affect the US, it affects everyone.

Maybe he genuinely is nursing an injury, but I'm skeptical. He does have a past history on this. Whenever he is in trouble in a match, he has been known to suddenly start limping or rubbing his shoulder or calling on the trainer... but miraculously it doesn't seem to ever affect his play. I'm a UK fan, and I've seen him do this time and time again when playing Andy Murray over the years. It does become a bit of a 'boy who cried wolf' situation, so that if he does ever actually start carrying an injury, people won't believe him.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/novak-djokovic-pablo-carreno-busta-french-open-quarter-final-injury-b883031.html

Yes. But this season doesn't look like it's going to be any better, even with a new coach. Barcelona are really in a transition period now. They've shipped out a lot of players that they didn't want, making huge financial losses on them as well... but they've not really brought new players in to replace them. They really look like a shadow of themselves at present. You can't see them challenging this year. And there is still the question of just how committed to the cause their star player Messi is going to be, after he was effectively forced to stay against his will.

I'm just going to throw these in for some wider perspective on how the election is viewed from outside the US. It's a summary of surveys from individual countries, but tells a consistent story. 1000+ participants in each, so fairly small... but consistent.
It's interesting how the view of both Trump and the election itself are hugely negative across Europe. It indicates I think that Trump is viewed as a leader who is bad for Europe, rather than that he's bad for the US. Probably due in large part to his revival of US isolationism, but perhaps also indicative of some pro-Trump media bias within the US. The lack of faith in the fairness of the election process in the foremost western democratic nation is quite shocking.





_{https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/08/minority-of-europeans-think-us-election-will-be-free-and-fair-poll}

This is good in general, but they are looking at other approaches too, some of which are controversial.

I know they are really pushing for reverse grid qualifying... which just sounds unfair, and I hope it doesn't go ahead. This is where instead of the normal qualifying, they have a short race - say 30 minutes - where the drivers line up in reverse championship order. Then the results in this race determine the starting positions in the actual race.

I don't think we should be worried. As crypto increases in value and journeys towards mainstream adoption, it inevitably comes to the attention of tax authorities. If there is any manipulation by big players, then I think it's no more relevant than the other forms of manipulation that currently exist, and anyway is likely to be subsumed by the long-term trend of increasing prices.

Odd that they've selected 5k as a threshold. Seems a bit arbitrary. Crypto is capital gains in the UK - why not use the minimum CG threshold of 12k?

Not amazing for Nadal, just standard at the French
Djokovic hasn't lost a set yet either. I've just counted back, he's lost 25 games in 4 matches, so roughly equivalent to winning every set 6-2 across those 4 matches - or a double-break each time.

Obviously the opponents get somewhat tougher as the rounds progress. Now that Thiem is out, Djokovic looks to have the slightly tougher route to the final, which should give Nadal the advantage for when they inevitably meet up.

Yes. I do hold XRP, and I am bullish long-term on the coin (that's a does in my quote, not a doesn't).
XRP has a very clear and strong use-case, and is way ahead of most projects in terms of integration with the mainstream. When there is good news for this coin, it isn't usually reflected in an immediate price rise, which is different to other coins... but as a long-term bet, XRP is I think a solid choice.

The long-running court case against XRP has been mostly thrown out now... which is good news for both Ripple and XRP. There are a couple of minor bits left, but the main body of the complaint is now irrelevant. Whilst - characteristically - this isn't having much upwards impact on the current price, it does bode well for the longer-term future of the project.

I think there's a common mistake in that the more information that people have, the more they think the outcome of the sports event is predictable. The more knowledge you have, the more you underestimate the element of chance that is inherent to the game. Some sports are obviously more susceptible to luck and random chance than others - look at cycling and Geraint Thomas, one of the favourites for the Giro, now being out of contention because of a stray water bottle that simply couldn't have been predicted.

More information is better, but as well as the need to understand exactly which of this information is relevant, it's also vitally important not to underestimate brute luck.

Capitalism is a process, not an end-state. It's not sustainable indefinitely. I'm not saying communism is better (it's not), just that points of crisis are to be expected, and it's the job of the government to manage them... which they are not doing very well. Debt is certainly inevitable under the current system, as the expectation of debt is what it's all built upon. Bitcoin does offer hope of greater freedom, but that's till a very long way off.

Nadal looks stronger than Djokovic at the French, so should be favourite to win. But Thiem is a potential complicating factor, as he plays Nadal in the semis. If Nadal has a tough fight against Thiem whilst Djokovic has a simple straight sets win against his opponent, then there's a chance that Nadal enters the final tired and drained, but Djokovic enters fresh and raring to go. I'd still favour Nadal, but this is one factor that might tilt the balance somewhat towards Djokovic winning.

To stretch the metaphor to breaking point, I think the bag is open, the cat is starting to venture out... but thinking about the general public, relatively few people are looking at the bag and most don't notice what's happening. Most probably are entirely unaware of the bag's existence. There are news reports about QE, money printing, ever rising debt... but most people, particularly in a pandemic, are concerned more about their personal immediate situation, not their personal situation in a wider context, and certainly not the functioning of the economy as a whole.

But as time goes on, the cat will continue to emerge... and eventually everyone will notice it. It's just that we're still a long way from that point.

It does look that way. The men's draw is a lot more predictable than the women's has been!

Thiem doesn't look like he'll reach the final again, because Nadal stands in his way.
Nadal looks invincible, but so does Djokovic... and something has to give. I would still bet on Nadal, just because it's the French. If it was anywhere else, or just not on clay, then Djokovic would be the clear favourite.

The Red Bull second driver situation is a bit silly. They've got themselves in the position where they can't really swap Albon back without looking stupid. But at the same time, bringing in someone like Alonso to partner Max would probably be a big mistake. Alonso and Max - like Lewis - are the sort of drivers who need to be number one in their teams. I think an Alonso/Max partnership, whilst great for viewers, would lead to trouble for the team in the manner of Hamilton/Rosberg from a few years back.