Some rumors are circulating in the Brazilian media that Caracas is threatening to invade Guyana due to their long border dispute. This comes in a year where D.C. broke a deal for lifting sanctions in Caracas and Guyana is the fastest growing economy in the entire world.
I'm planning a vacation to Georgetown next year, so if you guys don't predict it correctly, you could end up killing me.
I won't bet on this market. I'll rely in the American mainstream media, as also the Pentagon.
Doesn't need a full scale war. A Venezuelan attack in Guyana (DE facto) territory or vice-versa would mean YES.
Related markets
Related questions
Venezuela building up troops on Guyana border, satellite images show
These markets are just sardines. 208 people trading, but most don't dare to move the probability. Then someone like @egroj comes, destroys the probabilities on apparently no news, and no one dares to put where it was. Rather funny
@kcs The term "trading sardine" in Wall Street parlance, especially as used by finance professionals on platforms like Twitter, refers to a financial asset that is not valued for its fundamentals, but rather for its trading potential. This term is derived from an analogy with sardines: while eating sardines is their primary purpose, some sardines are kept not for consumption but for trading or speculative purposes.
In the financial context, a "trading sardine" is typically an asset that investors buy and sell not because they believe in its inherent value or long-term potential, but because they expect to profit from short-term price movements. These assets might be overhyped stocks, highly volatile securities, or any investment that is currently experiencing a lot of trading activity and attention, often disconnected from its fundamental value.
This term underscores the distinction between investing and trading. Fundamental investors, like those focused on long-term value, might avoid "trading sardines" because they prefer assets with solid fundamentals and growth prospects. In contrast, traders might seek out these "sardines" for quick profits, capitalizing on market trends and momentum.
The usage of this term, especially in a social media context like Twitter, often carries a note of caution or skepticism, suggesting that the asset in question is being driven more by market speculation than by sound investment principles.
Promises not to threaten force but no progress in diplomatic talks
@parhizj doubt any progress will come any time soon, the way Maduro runs Venezuela is insane but the one upside for him is that countries like Brazil don't really have that much leverage
Dora Kramer at the Folha de São Paulo (my translation):
https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/colunas/dora-kramer/2023/12/invasao-no-radar.shtml
Apart from the diplomatic negotiations, which on the official scene expresses disbelief in the possibility of Venezuela invading Guyana, in the internal military area the Ministry of Defense outlines scenarios that consider the possibility of Nicolás Maduro coming to blows feasible.
Conjectures are kept confidential. One of them, however, puts on the horizon the entry of Venezuelan forces into Essequibo to plant the country's flag there and unilaterally declare ownership of the territory, rich in oil and diamonds.
The gesture is seen as theatrical, but with the potential to worsen tension. In this hypothesis, it would be an offensive by sea, given that on the ground there is inhospitable terrain of forests on the one hand and, on the other, the blockade of the Brazilian border."We won't let them in", assures [defense] minister José Mucio Monteiro. Even so, in the military's opinion, the Venezuelan dictator must continue with his intentions, with the chance of him heeding the appeals of the allied Brazilian government for moderation being remote.
Maduro has his own agenda and, in the interpretation of the Brazilian military, he would not have called the plebiscite on the offensive in relation to Guyana if he did not intend to escalate the situation. "No one calls for a consultation like this if they don't intend to do something," [my emphasis] says one of these analysts.
This does not mean that there cannot be deterrence through diplomatic channels, but there is another sign that Maduro would not be willing to back down for now: the visit to Vladimir Putin.
Even scheduled before the plebiscite, the trip to Moscow has, in the Brazilian view, an obvious intention to seek support. Based on this analysis, the meeting may not yield material help, but it may signal a favorable position on the part of the Russian towards his fellow dictator.
It's a complicated situation for President Lula, who now finds himself trapped in the tightrope created by someone who doesn't live up to the complacent version that he would be a victim of "narratives".
https://x.com/oliverstuenkel/status/1733145848169554183?s=48
Oliver Stuenkel is a professor at my alma matter. Great read
@MP What counts as an attack? Military ground units crossing a border? Air units? Military units firing weapons? Casualties?
I'm planning a vacation to Georgetown next year, so if you guys don't predict it correctly, you could end up killing me.
I mean, this isn't an invitation to predict correctly, but to buy YES, since the payoff matrix is now heavily (infinitely?) unbalanced between the options, depending on how much we value your life more than mana (and your frustration at being needlessly denied a holiday, I suppose).
@JoelHancock should manifod traders value my life over the common man life?
Because tons of markets here can and will be used to inform life and death decisions
@MP Don't worry, I don't value your life more than any other strangers'. That's still way more than I care about fake internet money, though.
It's true that any market could inform important decisions, but usually it's in ways where I can't actually (even imperfectly) predict which direction I would (incrementally) be shifting peoples' actions, whereas you straightforwardly said how you're going to respond to the result! And (jokingly, I think?) imply we're responsible for the results!
Perhaps what I'm feeling is like the temptation some publicisers of climate change or AI risk seem to feel, to exaggerate the probability of certain unlikely scenarios, worried their audience won't understand how bad those scenarios are and how strenuously they should be avoided even if they're relatively low probability.
I disagree with that approach, though, so I'm going back to voting NO, and hoping you use the resulting probabilities responsibly, with your own values in mind. Good luck!
No guarantee, but a relevant signal:
Twitter: Rory Johnston @Rory_Johnston Venezuela is holding a referendum vote today on the issue of annexing 160,000 sq km of neighbouring Guyana. Territorial dispute is more than a century old, but has taken on a far more serious and immediate tone following the discovery of vast Guyanese oil reserves.
