Unless AI can magically make oil the next day, bear days ahead of us. Bulls suddenly all got dementia and forgot about the increasing capex spending across the board with only words of profitability in the future. Even companies like Google and META are running out of free cash flow and are raising money through selling their own version of “bonds”, which are compete indirectly or directly with government bonds. 10 year and 30 year yields are still high because what is 25 bps going to do. BoJ have to choose saving their yen and dealing with massive inflation due to having to import most of their goods. Who knows if they are going to raise more than 25bps.

---

Followed big flow into 10/9 spy 800c, lol.

---

we subsidize the entire oil and gas industry around the world. to the tune of much more than 250B every year. Our military exists in order to ensure the free flow of natural resources for us, and it costs much more than the 250B that china has spent over many years to support their battery and EV market.

---

i dont momentum trade either. only trade liquidity flow during the day and exit all positions before end of day

---

My guy, you must be new here! What you state is not rocket science, these companies hire some of the smartest people on the planet. They already know all of this. The banning of Chinese EV's are largely to protect the manufacturing base (or what's left of it). These are largely blue collar workers that vote against their own good. The US is by far the strongest car market in the world, and generates enormous amounts of Cash Flow. I see this as very similar to the Agriculture market, where the tax payer money is being used to heavily subsidize the American farmer to keep the voting block happy. (The US could literally pay the soy bean farmer to not grow their crops, and that would be cheaper than the amount of money currently being spent on the subsidies)

---

|GM 2025 Metric|Amount| |:-|:-| |Free Cash Flow|\~$17.6B| |Pension payments |\~$4–6B| |Dividends + Buybacks|\~$7.7B| It's always the pensions fault, but somehow they can afford tons of dividends & stock-buybacks....

---

That's actually the strongest counterargument to what I'm suggesting, and I think it's possible. A protected and highly profitable US market could give GM the cash flow to compete much more aggressively elsewhere. GM could make money on trucks and SUVs at home while being forced to cut costs and develop cheaper electrified products in markets like Brazil. My question is what happens if those two sides of GM start diverging too much. If the protected US profits are being used to make GM more efficient globally, then protection may genuinely be buying useful time. But if GM becomes increasingly dependent on high-margin trucks and SUVs in the US while its smaller and more affordable products struggle against Chinese competitors internationally, then the protected market may be masking the problem rather than fixing it. Brazil is why I'm interested in this distinction. GM can't avoid BYD, GWM and Geely here. Chevrolet has to compete for the same private customers, and that is already forcing a different product and pricing environment. So I agree that protection doesn't automatically make GM less competitive. The question is whether Detroit is using the protected revenue stream to become capable of competing without protection later. If it is, that's a successful industrial strategy. If it isn't, then the US market becomes a very profitable shelter while the competitive problem keeps growing outside it.

---

The reason those price movements happen is because of an influx of order flow being processed by MMs if that were to be smoothed out/equalized because it happened throughout the night it wouldn’t be as large of a jump

---

That’s absolute bullshit and nobody truly believes that, everyone knows they take personal positions and then route order flow the direction that’s betting against the majority of retail, you think they pay for PFOF and choose not to personally benefit from it because doing so would be immoral?

---

You know this is a real phenomenon that’s being studied by people smarter than us right? Pensions were “preferred habitat” buyers of 30 year Treasuries. They needed steady cash flow to match long term liabilities so they bought regardless of price, which kept long end yields suppressed. As 401ks replaced pensions, that price insensitive buyer disappeared. Now the marginal bond buyer cares about return, which means yields have to be higher to attract demand. Higher long end yields make carrying $36 trillion in federal debt considerably more expensive. Unfunded pensions were a management failure, not a structural one. Here’s an excellent white paper on the subject by Robin Greenwood. https://conference.nber.org/conf\_papers/f116251.pdf

---