rasmus

[rasmus @rasmusbehr]

@appmakarn @Investeraren Alltså jag såg bilderna på bilen i ett neutralt sammanhang, nästan positivt, men jag kände direkt att jag vill sälja mina Ferrariaktier. Bara det faktum att det är en fyrdörrars som ser ut som vilken bil som helst just nu räcker. Även om de vänder blad så skadar de sitt varumärke

[alex jungle @JungleAlex13227]

People mock the EU as “bureaucracy”. But that bureaucracy turned a continent of borders, currencies and wars into a space where 450 million people can travel, pay, call, study and work almost as if it were domestic. That is not boring. That is civilization becoming usable.

[Felix Prehn 🐶 @felixprehn]

Private equity firms bought 500 hospitals. Death rates in their emergency rooms went up 13%. They fired 12% of the staff. Then they paid themselves billions in dividends.

A Harvard study just confirmed what doctors already knew: people are dying so investors can hit quarterly targets.

Exactly what happens. A PE firm buys a hospital using debt. The debt gets placed on the hospital's balance sheet, not the firm's. Now the hospital owes hundreds of millions it never borrowed. To service that debt, the hospital cuts costs. Costs mean nurses.

The numbers from the Harvard/University of Chicago study are horrifying. After PE acquisition, emergency department salary spending dropped 18.2%. ICU salary spending dropped 15.9%. Hospital-wide employees were cut 11.6%. Emergency department deaths rose 13%, seven additional deaths per 10,000 visits.

A separate study found patients undergoing surgery at PE-acquired hospitals had 17% higher odds of dying within 90 days.

Steward Health Care, owned by Cerberus Capital, filed bankruptcy with $9 billion in debt after closing hospitals across Massachusetts. The CEO lived on a $40 million yacht while emergency rooms went dark. Eight hospitals serving 2 million people nearly disappeared because a PE fund extracted more cash than the system could survive.

The private equity industry has poured over $1 trillion into healthcare. They operate a quarter of ERs nationwide. This isn't going away.

The investing angle nobody talks about.

Non-PE hospital operators like HCA Healthcare (HCA) and Tenet (THC) are the direct beneficiaries. Every time a PE hospital closes or deteriorates, patients flow to the nearest competitor. HCA has returned 1,200% since 2011. Patient volume from PE closures is a structural tailwind nobody's pricing in.

Medical staffing firms (AMN Healthcare, Cross Country) charge premium rates specifically because PE hospitals cut staff. The staffing shortage IS the business model for these companies.

The disruption play: outpatient surgical centers (SCA Health, now part of UnitedHealth) are pulling profitable procedures out of hospitals entirely. PE-owned hospitals lose their highest-margin surgeries to outpatient, and the death spiral accelerates.

Pull up tradevision and monitor healthcare M&A alerts, hospital closure filings, and patient volume migration data. When a PE-owned hospital announces "restructuring," the patient volume shift to competitors like HCA starts within 30 days. That 30-day window is when the competitor's earnings revisions haven't updated yet. Free to try.

(a private equity firm bought your local hospital. borrowed $500 million in the hospital's name. fired 12% of the nurses. emergency room deaths rose 13%. then they paid themselves dividends. nobody went to prison. they're currently buying another hospital.)

[mike @mike98572986]

$qure $clpt I’m curious Scientist Andrew, if you guys are really doing what is right for patients how can you have Prasad not let Amt-130 move forward without even hearing them out? Prasad didn’t even have the balls to show up to the type A meeting, that is purely a gutless move. That isn’t doing right by the patients. I expect that from you Scientist Andrew but not the “smartest man in the room.” Btw, your 30 minute sham control surgery idea is a complete farce and a mockery of a sham control. Completely disgusting. Do better Scientist Andrew.

[Brian Allen @allenanalysis]

🚨 JUST IN: Howard Lutnick’s family firm reportedly bought tariff refund rights for 20–30 cents on the dollar after “Liberation Day” last year.

Now the Supreme Court has struck the tariffs down.

Translation:

For every $100 invested, Lutnick’s sons may have just made 3–5x.

Insiders knew. Regular Americans paid.

Welcome to Corrupt America — where policy is a profit scheme.

[rasmus @rasmusbehr]

@keadwen @BowTiedMara @KimDotcom This is a capitalist move you idiot

[Benjamin Dousa @BenjaminDousa]

The EU-Mercosur agreement would support 440 000 jobs across Europe, deliver cheaper products for 🇪🇺consumers and open huge export markets for 🇪🇺 companies, while also protecting our agricultural industry.

🇭🇺 continues to reject good deals for Europe. 🇸🇪 will vote yes tomorrow.

[rasmus @rasmusbehr]

@zhutzy2_0 Kul att se!!

[rasmus @rasmusbehr]

@Investacus @NordnetAra Samma med EU-politiken

[rasmus @rasmusbehr]

@SnackarGoja Arbetat med detta i Bryssel (privat sektor) här är förslaget https://t.co/na4VhhcVUL ett av alla såkallade "omnibuspaket", vilket i princip är en bundle av regelförenklingar riktat mot olika sektorer.

[rasmus @rasmusbehr]

@SnackarGoja Inför varje lagförslag från kommissionen utförs konsultation med industri och medborgare, samt impact assessments. Och under hela tiden fram till slutgiltigt förslag kan alla vara med att forma det, sedan kan det vattnas ur eller skickas tillbaka helt av råd och parlament.

[rasmus @rasmusbehr]

@SnackarGoja Ja AI act ska implementeras, men som sagt det är också redan igång att den ska simplifieras med en egen omnibus och vara mer proportionell med mindre red tape. Därav är ingenting helt klart och att det är en mer livlig och mindre ensidig process än vad du får det att framstå.

[rasmus @rasmusbehr]

@SnackarGoja Att inte överreglera särskilda sektorer som AI kommer vara extra viktigt för framtida tillväxt, men man bör också komma ihåg att inte kompromissa med levnadsstandarden som vi åtnjuter och att den teknologiska utvecklingen ske etiskt. Samma regler gäller för alla på vår marknad.

[rasmus @rasmusbehr]

@SnackarGoja De regleringarna har däremot gett oss otroligt starkt konsumentskydd och rättigheter som inte dikteras av de största företagen. Ibland blir det för detaljarat och svårt för företag att leva upp till, därför pågår just nu en avregleringtrend i EU, tex med omnibusförslagen.

[rasmus @rasmusbehr]

@SnackarGoja Hur kan du ta ett amerikanskt techbolag i försvar med en miljardär som aktivt försöker söndra europeisk integration? Och som medvetet bryter mot våra lagar? Tycker du DSA är skit som inte behövs? Att techföretag ska få ha fria tyglar på den europeiska marknaden?

[Бианка @BiankaB12]

WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
Dear Americans,
Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?

[Julia Davis @JuliaDavisNews]

Garry Kasparov is 100% correct. Thank you for always telling it like it is, @Kasparov63. Listen before it's too late.

[James @TypeForVictory]

On Polanski’s points themselves:

1. The idea that “democracy” should override gilt markets misunderstands what markets are doing. They aren’t making moral judgements, they’re pricing inflation and institutional risk. If investors see weaker fiscal discipline or blurred lines between Treasury and BoE, they demand a higher yield. That feeds straight through into mortgages, business borrowing and public-sector financing. It isn’t a veto – it’s a cost.

2. Saying “just issue more debt to invest” assumes the marginal pound delivers returns above the marginal cost of capital. If gilt yields rise because credibility slips, the hurdle rate rises with it. At some point the government ends up funding low-return projects with high-cost borrowing, and the maths breaks.

3. Claiming markets “can’t stop governments borrowing” ignores the rollover problem. The UK refinances huge volumes every year. If long yields drift to 6–7%, debt service expands mechanically, even if you don’t borrow a penny more. That squeezes out exactly the public services and investment programmes he says he wants to protect.

4. Suggesting we can simply stop paying interest on reserves is a hidden tax on the banking system. Banks respond by lowering deposit rates, widening lending spreads or cutting credit availability. You save the Treasury some money but households and firms pay the bill instead. And without remunerated reserves, the BoE loses precise control of overnight rates unless it goes back to large, frequent market operations.

5. Treating gilts as a political inconvenience ignores the fact the entire sterling yield curve depends on them. Undermine the credibility of gilt issuance and you raise the cost of mortgages, commercial property finance, council borrowing, infrastructure funding and pension liabilities. It hits the real economy long before it hits “the rich”.

The claimed benefits – cheaper funding, larger investment, more fiscal room – only hold if inflation expectations, the currency and the yield curve remain stable. Undermine that stability, and the programme backfires quickly: higher borrowing costs, weaker investment, pressure on public services and a loss of monetary credibility.

The risk isn’t that “markets stop democracy”. It’s that bad macroeconomics makes everything more expensive for the very people he says he wants to help.

[James @TypeForVictory]

The UK’s problem is simple: we don’t generate enough productive output to pay for what we consume. We run persistent trade deficits and rely on foreign capital to fund them, which leaves us exposed to currency swings, higher borrowing costs and external shocks.

That’s why talk of shrinking the City or squeezing high-value sectors is so reckless. Someone has to earn the foreign currency that pays for our energy, food, manufactured goods and technology. In Britain, that work is done by a shrinkong group of exporters: advanced manufacturing, aerospace, pharmaceuticals, higher education and the City. Weaken them and you weaken the currency and raise import costs for everyone else.

Pushing the economy further towards domestic, non-tradable services and a swelling public sector is dangerous. Domestic services don’t earn foreign currency; the public sector doesn’t export. If they grow faster than the tradable sector, the export base becomes too narrow to support our consumption and we become even more dependent on volatile capital inflows.

The only durable solution is higher productivity. More output per worker means lower unit costs, better wages and stronger competitiveness abroad. It also strengthens the tax base without raising taxes.

To get there we need to cut input costs and clear bottlenecks: planning reform, simpler taxes, predictable rules, and investment in nuclear, freight rail, ports, logistics, fibre and 5G. And we need a modern, efficient state - digitisation, automation, and estates that don’t consume ever more labour and funding.

That’s the kind of public investment that raises productivity and widens the export base. It makes it easier to produce, innovate and sell abroad.

The alternative – higher taxes on productive sectors, more public hiring and greater reliance on non-tradable services – shrinks the part of the economy that pays for our imports while expanding the parts that depend on it. Over time that erodes the currency, raises living costs and forces deeper cuts or higher taxes just to stand still.

A credible economic strategy has to make the UK a better place to produce and export. Everything else is redistribution without growth – and redistribution doesn’t last when the productive base keeps shrinking.

[rasmus @rasmusbehr]

@jeremyj0916 @ErikOtto2 Where did you get this estimate? Sounds incredibly high