A podcast that says more about your need for self-assurance than ...about Argentina.

An ideologically charged self-presentation disguised as financial analysis.
What you deliver is not a look at markets, but an attempt to place yourself above them ..as a smart outperformer in a world full of leftists, sleepyheads and system failures.

Your Argentina case almost completely ignores key risks. Institutional instability, fragile currency, social tensions.

If you think Milei is rational capitalism, you are hallucinating a market model from an authoritarian power act.
And anyone who packages this as a 100-minute self-presentation is not delivering analysis, but emotional position trading in podcast form.

••

Yoshika 🦋.@Yoshika

12H

@Yoshika
Your Boeing thing also follows the same pattern.
Fundamental weaknesses? Quality problems? Governance collapse?
Ignored. As long as an analyst switches to "buy" and the share price rises, the story fits.
You don't need a risk model. You just need confirmation.

And that's exactly what you need.
Not about markets, risk or strategy.
It's about being right.
You're not acting as an investor, but as an ideologue with a portfolio.

What comes across as analysis is actually a stage.
And your cases - Argentina, Boeing, Bitcoin, Coinbase, Sweden - are just props.
They don't have to be resilient. They just have to work ... as long as they make you feel like you're on the right side.

You don't want to build a portfolio. You want to save a narrative.
And anyone who interferes with that is "left-wing", "naive" or a "system servant".
Market data is only valid for you if it supports your stance. Everything else is softened, ridiculed or ignored.

You talk about Bitcoin as an exit, about Coinbase as a structure and about Sweden as a role model. But you confuse financial architecture with ideological self-assurance.

The Swedish pension is a state-regulated, broad-based solidarity system. Not the projection surface for your market-liberal wishful thinking.
That is not analysis. That is reframing on suspicion.

What you provide is not orientation, but an ego monologue with an ETF supplement.

••

Yoshika 🦋.@Yoshika

12H

@Yoshika
What appears to be an analysis is a soliloquy with a market reference. Not fact-driven, but mood-driven. Not open to knowledge, but in need of confirmation.

You don't argue, you curate.
And only what fits into your world view. The rest is cut away like a bad earnings report.

If you really want to understand markets, you have to put up with what contradicts your narrative.
But that's where your interest ends ... and your program begins.

••

Yoshika 🦋.@Yoshika

11H

@Yoshika
It would be interesting to hear what the podcast faction has to say about it. Provided I can still read it later...

••

ThemenmitKopf@topicswithhead

@Yoshika Seems more like you're continuing the public culture war here. I only listened to it briefly, but I see no reason to write 3 A4 pages. Mine is his podcast, let him run it however he wants. He's just liberal center-right or right-wing (don't know him now but seems like it) and that's how he serves people. It wasn't as if he was lying, they just listed their arguments and then he occasionally blasphemed about the left.

••

Yoshika 🦋.@Yoshika

@topicswithhead
It's not about "left versus right".
It's about whether a financial platform is used to deliberately create a mood by belittling groups or instrumentalizing crises and normalizing border-crossing as a stylistic device.

The fact that you classify this as a "culture war" rather shows how normalized such border crossings already appear.
But anyone who takes economic analysis seriously should also take responsibility for language and impact.

••

ThemenmitKopf@topicswithhead

@Yoshika Seems more like we had different concepts of what you can and can't say. I don't see the offensive part (I only listened for 20 minutes), which was completely inappropriate. My he pulls over the left, the left pulls over the right, as long as they don't disparage third parties, it's nothing more than a culture war. There's just as much as him on the opposite side. Apart from that, the opinion blogger or influencer is not a journalist. Just don't listen to it if you don't like it. You don't have to consume everything, especially if you don't like it. I find the podcast, for example, a bit low level (I've only listened to it twice, including today) and so I don't listen to it. Problem solved 💐.

••

Yoshika 🦋.@Yoshika

@Yoshika
Let me quote freely from the podcast ...exemplary for the style:

"Capitalism is not for snowflakes - it's Darwin, not diversity."

"If you pay attention to human rights in emerging markets, you just become poor with attitude."

"If you don't understand Argentina, you should just go back to queuing at the blackboard instead of trying to have a say."

"I don't care if something crashes at Boeing - as long as the course flies, I'll fly with it."

"If the Boeing pilots bail out and crash on purpose, the course is more important to me than their fate."

"Africa, hunger, corruption - exactly my investment case."

This is deliberate border shifting under the guise of financial analysis.

••

Yoshika 🦋.@Yoshika

@Yoshika
When language accumulates, it eventually becomes attitude. And when attitude has an effect, simply not listening is not a solution, but part of the problem.

It's not about taste. It's about whether we simply accept the cynical shifting of boundaries under the label of "pure capitalism", or whether we critically name where rhetoric becomes the legitimization of contempt.

••