LC

We're talking about integrity, neither candidate has much. Hillary probably has slightly more.

For all you guys out there who have small hands, take a note: Trump on global warming http://i.imgur.com/fd1Icjc.jpg Trump on charity https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html Trump on 9/11 (Hillary on 9/11 for context) http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-hillary-clinton-september-11-911-attacks-nyc-214236 Trump on honesty in politics https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/09/27/donald-trump-said-34-false-things-at-first-presidential-debate.html Trump on real estate http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/28/news/trump-apartment-tenants/

You lost 90 minutes of your life that you can never get back. I didn't do that to myself. I figured if Hillary passed out or Trump said a racial slur, or it came to blows, etc, I could see the lowlights the next day on youtube. It was incredible in it's own way. I've seen the last 20 years worth of presidential debates, and this was BAAAAD. They're better off just turning it into a SNL skit, at least that way it's socially acceptable to laugh and flip the channel to sports or a made-for-tv movie.

What the hell did I just watch last night.

If I'm walking down the street and I hear some dude scream "I'm the CEO of Chipotle and there's e-coli everywhere!", if I go and short that stock, I am legally allowed to do so.

This is where I disagree with your perspective. I feel I am repeating myself. You say human capital is cheap due to slack. US unemployment is below 5%. Workers are more educated and mobile than at any other time in history. These are good things and are relatively sustainable. In terms of inflation, I mean, CPI is not a great measure. So what are we looking at here? Also how's this argument: are we not seeing inflation in certain assets? Stocks bonds etc.? It's late and I need sleep so I'll try and flesh this argument out tmrw. I don't buy the "but there's no inflation" argument. I think it's more nuanced. So there's also the "exported inflation" argument. Regardless, I'll consider it a win-win that we both agree rates should be low, regardless of our different justifications.

I literally just posted this: Human capital is better educated than ever and can be allocated globally for practically no cost. Technology advances every day. Materials are cheaper to mine, products are cheaper to build and distribute, than ever before. Why should interest rates be high? I'm pretty much theorizing a few reasons why interest rates should be low. I'm pretty sure this directly addresses the discussion. Before that I was taking issue with your observations on inflation, economic activity, etc., which I disagree with. I have no idea as to why certain parties would lend at negative rates. Maybe they're foolish. Maybe they're brilliant. Like Don mentioned earlier, if you're willing to, I'll take you up on it. To the first point, I was making an argument about the US during a certain period of time. Not Japan, not Greece. I put out my theory, it's a theory. Feel free to disagree. To your second point, frankly I have no idea what you're getting at. I'm saying low cost of capital across the value chain (raw materials, productivity gains, cheap transportation, cheap human capital), in real terms, translates into low interest rates. Why individual retirees make asset allocation decisions is completely up to them...Maybe they're lazy and would rather spend the time sunning vs. chasing marginal returns.

Partially I am. Are we worse off because we are growing at 2%/yr vs. 4%? Should we expect to grow at 4% forever? Perspective is needed. I'm not trying to create some relationship between interest rates and XYZ. I'm just saying what we've observed over the last 6 or so years in the US was enabled to a large extent by cheap capital. This may not hold true in the future, in other countries, on the moon, etc. :D Perhaps we are working through (or maybe it is permanent) a "demographic bulge" of cheap capital. Human capital is better educated than ever and can be allocated globally for practically no cost. Technology advances every day. Materials are cheaper to mine, products are cheaper to build and distribute, than ever before. Why should interest rates be high?

So you quote three things, but I see a different view than you: 1. Inflation: How are you measuring inflation? PCE (personal consumption expenditures) perhaps is more relevant than CPI? It is debatable. PCE has been rising: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCE 2. De-leveraging I believe Don has addressed the 'deleverarging' argument, but here is the graph of total securitized consumer credit, if you want a consumer rather than soverign measure: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TOTALSL 3. Sluggish economy By what measure? Unemployment is below 5%. The stock market is near or above all-time highs. realGDP is up. I'm not sure how you are measuring this, as many of the main indicators of economic activity point to a very active economy. Perhaps you are looking at home sales? I am not sure that's the best indicator as it is usually considered a lagging indicator. ---- So the conclusion I see is: increased prices, increased economic activity, and increased leverage. IMHO this is all made possible by very low interest rates.

60,000 ft perspective: the market thinks the housing market will slow down hence future demand

income stocks are probably very correlated with interest rates, right? at this point it makes sense to distribute most of earnings to shareholders and take on debt to fund anything else, i would think.

Hahaha this is great. I pretty much agree, I personally treat it as a casual hobby at this point. Thanks for sharing!

I could go on a long rant about individual rights, the political process, not compromising in life, being able to sleep at night, etc. but I'll just say this: I don't endorse shitty companies, products, or people. If I'm putting my name behind something, it's something I think works. So I have the right to drive through all your damn buildings, and I will do so with a smile on my face. So it's basically the tantrum in the cereal isle Actually no. I think most reasonable people can understand my argument. But I will do the favor of breaking it down for you as it seems you've only gotten as far as Frosted Flakes: I don't endorse shitty companies, products, or people. If I'm putting my name behind something, it's something I think works. This is my vote, and it represents my choice for who I wish to lead me politically. There is a saying that goes something like, 'if you don't vote, you don't get to complain'. Well that can be further expanded, into something like, 'why are you complaining? you voted for him!'. So I have the right to drive through all your damn buildings, and I will do so with a smile on my face. Here in the great State of New York, I have the ability to write-in a candidate. In New York, and in the United States, citizens are generally encouraged to exercise their rights and abilities, particularly in the field of politics. This is how many individual freedoms have been won, especially for oppressed groups. The very existence of these freedoms is what allows the social and political landscape to evolve. To dismiss it by calling it "crap" is to dismiss one of the most important principles of this country. It's lazy, short-sighted, and spits in the face of history.

I could go on a long rant about individual rights, the political process, not compromising in life, being able to sleep at night, etc. but I'll just say this: I don't endorse shitty companies, products, or people. If I'm putting my name behind something, it's something I think works. So I have the right to drive through all your damn buildings, and I will do so with a smile on my face.

write in: Bernie flippin' sanders

Be careful how you interpret the quote:

Everyone has different price targets, I think whats more important is identifying (or at least having an educated guess) at which of the blue-chips will continue to compound vs. erode.

I only want strong multinational companies with a history of raising dividends - should have qualified this above. Agreed on Apple - will probably never own it. FB doesn't have a dividend yet but it will. Always exceptions. My plan is to use this list to rapidly deploy cash. My portfolio (signature) has a few stocks which may be beneficial. MMM, NKE, WPP especially come to mind. Probably wouldn't be too hard to determine an attractive price range if you stare at the financials for a bit.

I agree with cheetah but it's one of those things where you need to know what the rules are before u start bending them. Read a bunch of 10ks from a variety of companies, and sooner or later you'll realize how useful or useless they are to you.

5C owner here looking seriously at the SE.

Nice insult, ccplz. You just won the argument and clinched my vote against Trump. What a master stroke!

But how about Angela Merkel's disastrous refugee policies that changed the lives of so many German people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany 1200 women were raped publicly on the street. Their lives were forever changed. And this is just one incident. Smaller crimes happen almost everyday in Germany now. 1200 sexual assaults** and at least 5 rapes.

This is a good point and I've thought about it a lot. I think there are a handful of factors at play, including: -ambiguous qualifications of what makes a "good CEO" -the switching cost point you mention -fear of being the odd-man-out (i.e. the owner to take the first step in reducing ceo pay) -an 'old boys club' at the top, where many of these ppl look out for each other vs. meritocracy -the faulty assumption that CEO pay must be in line with company scale (but not other positions) -lack of true attribution - i.e. faulty measurement of what a CEO actually contributes towards company success

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014 But the problem isn’t that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It’s not if, it’s when.

Guess it didn't work out with apple