golli

Irgendwie sehe ich das anders. Merz Politik passt sehr gut in die aktuelle Zeit: nicht konstruktiv und andere möglichst schlecht reden, opportunistisch, lügen wie es einem passt und sich null um die Aussagen von gestern kümmern. Das einzige Problem ist eigentlich, dass er damit langfristig nicht seiner eigenen Partei, sondern der AFD hilft. Aber langfristig wird da wohl eh nicht geplant.

Scholz ist schon eher jemand der nicht wirklich in die aktuelle Politik passt, aber der ist glaube ich auch nur Kanzler geworden, weil er der glückliche Dritte war, nachdem die Konkurrenz erst die Grünen und dann sich selbst demontiert hat.

Sie bedauerte, dass es den Grünen nicht gelungen sei, sich durchsetzen, "weil wir jetzt wieder eine Untertunnelung der Schuldenbremse haben statt einer ordentlichen Reform"

Warum haben sie dann zugestimmt anstatt härter zu verhandeln? Bei den Verteilungsausgaben ist es auch bei 1% statt den geforderten 1,5% geblieben, was meiner Meinung nach ein Zeichen ist wie wenig das letztlich doch zählt und der nächsten Regierung mehr Spielraum für Steuergeschenke gibt.

Man hätte sich jetzt auf die militärische Seite beschränken können und dann mit den linken auf eine wirkliche Reform.

On that note they should also finally stop using it. If every politician, institution and public broadcaster would stop using Twitter and start using mastodon it would easily gain enough momentum to replace it as the default platform in Europe.

Sounds like it's going in the right direction for you financially, that's great! Depending on the interest rate paying off a mortage is definitely the right call and a pretty good (+reliable) return.

That said i would probably still set up a small savings plan on a broad market ETF. Not because it's necessarily an amazing time to invest, but to dip your toes into the experience and get a bit desensitized against the fluctuations. Doesn't really matter the amount really (assuming you can invest without large fees), it just makes a difference psychologically to have skin in the game. That way you have some history once you decide to enter the market with larger sums.

The Covid dip, while certainly unusual, is a pretty good example to why it might be a good idea. Since then there's constantly been chaos in the world, but you could have invested with the worst timing in 2020 and would now be better off than by sitting on the sidelines. The past isn't indicative of the future, but on that topic i really like the story of Bob, the world's worst market timer

To be fair i think times are rarely normal. Just since 2000 we've had the dot com bubble, great financial crisis, covid pandemic, ukraine war and now this. Although the current situation feels like a particularly unforced and unnecessary one. And before that there were also plenty of other crisis from world wars, the cold war with things like the cuban missile crisis or the 1973 oil crisis.

HYSA with those rates certainly seem like an appealing place to be in the current market, but as always this is a question about market timing, which is hard to impossible. When did you exit your positions and when do you plan to reenter? Because as said with the recent drops on a wide market scale we are still only down to levels just before the US election and nobody knows how things will play out in the future.

So my point still stands that anyone who is finding himself in acute issues due to the current market changes has done poor risk management. Broad market etfs are meant for a long term investment horizon of 10-15 years exactly so one can weather out downturns. And if someone is close to retirment it would have been prudent to shift some portion of savings into more stable investments similar to how target date funds handle it. Which might still be a good move right now, as the losses are still within reason, assuming a diversified investment strategy (and not something like having bought tesla at peak or the trump meme coin).

That seems like a good addition, although at least for younger people i'd still prefer stocks over the safer annuities, since with a longer time horizon you can weather out some of the fluctuations for higher returns.

What's the better alternative? I'd certainly take a 401k over the current system in Germany where the current working population pays for the pensions of those currently retired. Which is obviously unsustainable if you take a single look at the demographic changes ahead.

Stocks will eventually go up again and at least for my global all world ETF the current drop means we are only back to where we were in September 24. Trump is certainly destroying a lot of wealth with his actions, but I think this would be true regardless of how you invest.

And anyone in hot waters right now because of the current drops should have probably been invested more diversified and maybe reduced risk a bit more.

The first was released in December 2018, the second in June 2023, and this one is now planned for June 2027. If that holds it would still be a shorter turnaround than between the first and second movie, which turned out great. So while I'd agree that normally it would be a bad sign, i don't think we can draw any conclusions in this case.

ETH-Experte Schmidt sagt hingegen, die Zukunft liege in Lithium-Ionen-Batterien. «Der grosse Markt für Lithium-Ionen-Batterien sind Elektro-Fahrzeuge. Gerade in China wird hier viel investiert, und die Batterien werden rasch besser und günstiger. Die Lernkurve dieser Technologie ist enorm», so Schmidt.

Ich bin absoluter Laie und der Mann ist Experte auf dem Gebiet, aber ich dachte der Trend geht eher zu Natrium statt Lithium Batterien? Vor allem dort wo es nicht so auf Gewicht und Energiedichte ankommt.

Sehe ich genauso, wenn Pflicht für alle, dann staatlich, was aber wie du sagst rechte Tasche linke Tasche wäre. Wobei es mMn eigentlich das, was eine Pflichtversicherung leisten sollte eh schon gibt: Der Sozialstaat sichert einen dagegen ab, dass man vor dem absoluten nichts steht und der Katastrophen Schutz gegen die akute Gefahr im Ernstfall. Worum es hier ja eigentlich geht ist doch "nur" der Schutz von Eigentum.

Ich denke hinter dem Vorstoß liegt vor allem Lobbyismus und politische Kalkulation. Für die Versicherungen wird es natürlich ein neuer Markt (wobei das auch mit Risiken verbunden ist, dass man es akkurat einschätzen muss). Für die Politiker geht es vor allem darum sich aus der Verantwortung zu ziehen.

Man könnte so eine Versicherung natürlich nutzen um Leute dazu zu motivieren präventive Maßnahmen zu ergreifen und langfristig aus Gefahrengebieten wegzuziehen. Allerdings glaube ich eher es geht darum, dass Naturkatastrophen langfristig gefährlicher und mehr werden und keiner der Politiker will im Ernstfall derjenige sein, der als erster sagt: "ihr wurdet aus der Gefahr gerettet und es gibt einen Sozialstaat mit Bürgergeld. Es gibt kein Anrecht auf ein Eigenheim und Wiederaufbauhilfen, das kann sich der Staat nicht leisten." Das wäre politischer Selbstmord.

Durch die Versicherung lässt sich der Status quo vielleicht noch etwas verlängern (bis die Kosten zu hoch werden) und man muss selbst nicht mehr der Buhmann im Ernstfall sein.

Das und wenn man es Mal mit jemand anderem tauschen will, dann ist es einfacher, wenn man die Barren einfach ins Regal daneben legen muss, anstatt sie um die halbe Welt zu transportieren.

As i understand it most of the money they are investing goes into new datacenters. So when a model gets outdone by a new one they still have those, unlike e.g. OpenAI that use other companies resources (i think microsoft and oracle mostly?). In a way companies that use those external clouds to train their own models are financing the investments needed for the big players.

AWS, GCP and Azure are all growing 30%+ yoy, are profitable and if anything supply constraint in that they can't build more capacity fast enough to meet demand. So it seems to me that to some degree they are already recouping some of those investments. I don't see a drop in demand for compute, and even if using/training ai would become less resource intensive, Jevons paradox would just lead to more demand.

Of course they also burn a lot of money as anytime a new model gets trained and beats the older ones, it kind of renders the resources spend on the previous one worthless. But to me that seems like the cost of doing business.

The current investments they can afford. What would actually lead to shedding huge amounts of marketcap is, if they'd let a rival establish themselves. Similar to how the movie studios didn't get into streaming early (mostly to not hurt their cable business) and gave Netflix enough time to establish themselves.

To comment on something you mentioned in another reply below:

I just don’t see a world where most people are coughing up more than $10 a month for AI.

I think the big money will be in the business world, where salaries for actual people are high enough that saving a person even a few hours/week or replacing a single employee saves so much money that even expensive subscriptions would easily be worth it.

On the consumer side as you say running smaller models locally will likely be the norm. But that means it would be free for both the likes of Deepseek and Google. And then it'll just come down to who has access to personal information and is better embedded, which would be likely be whoever also controls other aspects of a users life, such as Goole with Android, gmail etc. Money here will be made just as it is done with other free services.