Gyroscopic Investing

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampent ... d-forever/

Today seemed eventful, with large moves in LTT and stocks, and more news about Ebola in the States.  So eventful that some people might not have noticed this.  Coming from an organization like Lockheed Martin, this has to be credible.  They seem pretty optimistic about their ability to prototype one (2 or 3 years).

That would be a major breakthrough (and I hope it works out), but to keep things in perspective,  fusion that actually works has been "real soon now" for a long long time.  Which is why the author of that article ended it with:

"If it works, the world will be a different place.

But in the meantime the emphasis should remain on the word “if.”?

Cool. I still have some LMT shares.

Lowe wrote: http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampent ... d-forever/

Today seemed eventful, with large moves in LTT and stocks, and more news about Ebola in the States.  So eventful that some people might not have noticed this.  Coming from an organization like Lockheed Martin, this has to be credible.  They seem pretty optimistic about their ability to prototype one (2 or 3 years).

When Lockheed Martin teams with the government I think it is mostly about figuring out how to kill people. There is an office across the street from me and after trimming my trees in the backyard I can actually see some people working late at night.

Saw a thing on 60 minutes a while back about how the Pentagon is looking into the mostly discredited idea of cold fusion thinking there might actually be something to it. I'm sure they are only thinking of the betterment of humanity of course so I rest assured that it is only good work going on across the street.

I've been looking forward to this for years!!!

OK, I know this is a longshot, but cold fusion would certainly be world changing.  What asset would benefit the most?  Stocks, right?

With unlimited energy:
Real estate would tank
Gold would tank
Bonds?  Up due to deflation?

Regardless, if it can replace fission reactors, coal plants etc, plus launch a new fleet of cars powered with hydrogen fuel cells, it would be an incredible advance.

Certainly it would be great for stocks, but there will still be plenty of other reasons for future stock market corrections and the resulting flight to gold and bonds.  Making the US less dependent on Middle East oil certainly wouldn't hurt either stocks or bonds.

dragoncar wrote: OK, I know this is a longshot, but cold fusion would certainly be world changing.  What asset would benefit the most?  Stocks, right?

With unlimited energy:
Real estate would tank
Gold would tank
Bonds?  Up due to deflation?

Why would gold tank? I don't think transmutation would be cost-effective even with cheap energy.

Wow, that is really something! I assume they wouldn't announce this unless they are really pretty sure it will work.

It brings up the question of how much more deflationary things can get.  If LMT makes a positive press releases about this project, for the next few years, where will oil prices be heading?

Lowe wrote: It brings up the question of how much more deflationary things can get.  If LMT makes a positive press releases about this project, for the next few years, where will oil prices be heading?

Oil is much too valuable to be burned.

Libertarian666 wrote:

dragoncar wrote: OK, I know this is a longshot, but cold fusion would certainly be world changing.  What asset would benefit the most?  Stocks, right?

With unlimited energy:
Real estate would tank
Gold would tank
Bonds?  Up due to deflation?

Why would gold tank? I don't think transmutation would be cost-effective even with cheap energy.

I'm guessing most of the cost of digging up new gold is energy, but that's just a guess.

I'm skeptical too when it comes to so-called "big break throughs". They usually take many years to come to fruition and are arbed out in the process. However it LKM so that's better than some no-name making the claim on Coast to Coast AM.

Regardless of what it would do to the PP, less resources spent on energy would mean more resources to spend on other things like health care, food, leisure and housing (all of which would benefit from lower energy inputs).

Libertarian666 wrote: Wow, that is really something! I assume they wouldn't announce this unless they are really pretty sure it will work.

Large announcements like this often coincide with funding drives.  If they say the product is ten years out, that means they're looking for a decade worth of investments.  If it was really that close, they'd most likely keep it a trade secret up until the point where they had a working model. 

The concept is cool, though.  And revolutionary if/when it actually hits.