Description

Steve Sjuggerud is the editor of True Wealth, a Stansberry Research publication.

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • What role (if any) should the gov’t play in the continued funding of cutting-edge scientific research? According to the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and  Development), approximately 10% of all R&D conducted globally is directly funded by governments, with approximately 60% done by private industry and 20% by educational institutions. Granted, this number probably doesn’t take into account indirect gov’t funding through tax subsidies and incentives. That 10% goes towards projects on the cutting edge of science, such as NASAs various space ventures and the Large Hadron Collider at CERN (funded through the governments of the member states). Proponents of big gov’t science, such as Neil Degrasse Tyson, have stated in the past that projects like these are unlikely to be privately funded due to their high risk, high cost, and lack of return on investment. Gov’t, claims Tyson, is required to make the initial step and take all the risk so that private firms can follow in its wake with a clear picture of the requirements of such endeavours. TAM 2011: Our Future in Space Would such high risk, high cost projects be possible without gov’t backing?

    Jump to Discussion Post 10 replies
  • I sold all of my EE bonds in 2014 and bought Bitcoins with the proceeds. I did this because I considered holding them to be willfully receiving stolen money. As everyone knows, Treasuries are backed by the full faith and credit of a state, along with its taxing power. My conclusion is that no consistent libertarian should be using T-bonds or T-bills. Thoughts?

    Jump to Discussion Post 3 replies
  • Here’s a discussion I had yesterday with my accountant. He claims that “we” need to have “legal certainty” to encourage other ti invest in our economy. And that Patents are “legal certainty”. Companies spend large amounts of money and time to do research and to innovate. While others just “copy” what the researchers, the investigators, the investors, generate: new products, new technologies, new medicine, whatever. Therefore, the innovators/investigators/investors will want protection: And if they didn’t have protection of their “creations”, “discoveries”, “inventions” or whatever you’d want to call it, the would not have the INCENTIVE to invest tons of funds on investigation, innovation and research. And therefore there would be no progress. What do you guys think? Your opinion is highly appreciated!

    Jump to Discussion Post 29 replies
  • I’m considering potentially putting some money in a savings account abroad but of course it’s a minefield in terms of local laws, risk, interest rates, taxes, etc. Does anyone have any experience of doing this? What’s the “best” country to place your money in terms of maximising return? Thanks!

    Jump to Discussion Post 16 replies
  • So how many of you on here have invested in the project in Chile? I have had my eye on investing there for a while. It looks so impressive!

    Jump to Discussion Post 20 replies