LC

While population growth and access to a higher quality of life will slow, technology will continue to improve and create economic growth (in my view, of course)

Mostly due to technology creating effeciencies and inflation

drink, smoke cigarettes, not a drug user but have used recreationally.

If the government (which is owner of the majority of the tangible/intangible capital in this country) charged market rate for this capital, the cost structure of our entire economy would be different. But they don't, as such we have massive inefficiencies. For example, Walmart employees reduced to food stamps. The government is essentially subsidizing Walmart. Nobody would work these jobs if they all died of starvation in 30 days or so. As a result, Walmart increases their EV by a few % as Don alludes to, and senior management disproportionately benefits.

This is essentially where government needs to step in and tax.

A man is drunk in a bar. Across the bar he sees three heavy set women, speaking with Scottish sounding accents. He makes his way to the women and asks; "Excuse me, are you ladies from Scotland?" The first women gets mad and yells "It's Wales, you ass! Wales!" The man the replies. "I'm sorry, are you three whales from Scotland?"

Do you know why the Amish girl was excommunicated? 2 mennanite

Both companies can grow at 10% if you assume the company with higher IRR (20%) has less investment opportunity than the company with lower IRR. I.e. the lower IRR company can put 2x the money to work. LuxCo - High margin goods (high IRR) - lower volume, higher IRR MassCo - Low margin goods (low IRR) - higher volume, lower IRR Both can grow profits by the same amount per year. LuxCo can only invest 1K. MassCo can invest 2K.

Warren Buffett buys no brainer companies. What is the probability that Warren Buffett's $30B investment in BNSF will go to 0? If something bad happens to rail he'll get a ton of dividends and then probably sell it such that he can break even with dividends. Downside and upside are limited. Anyone can see that at the time of acquisition. What is the probably the Nokia will go to 0 at time of acquisition? I'd say honestly at the time 25%? Someone has tons of cold hard cash and decides to plow it into something like Nokia better know what the hell he is doing. And Ballmer I can argue in hindsight did not. I can argue only a few living gods among us do. Buffett is just one example that the person making a decision is not necessarily responsible for the successful/unsuccessful outcome from that decision. If the gov't decided to nationalize the rail system and break up the oligopoly, is Buffett responsible the same way Ballmer was "responsible"?

I am sorry to say this but this is got to be the worst joke here :) :) :) :) :) Did you hear about the kidnapping in Virginia? Don't worry, he woke up.

The MSFT CEO was 100% responsible for making the decision to buy Nokia which turned out to be a $10B writeoff. Here the CEO's decision cost the company $10B Warren Buffett is 100% responsible for the decision to buy companies. Is the future success (or failure) of those companies 100% attributable to Warren Buffett?

I think the people over-value the contribution of CEOs. If you hire a new CEO and pay him $30mm more than the last CEO, and the new CEO implements a strategy at the $45B EV company that expands the EV by 1%, then the CEO AND the company have made more money. It's not zero sum. Right, because the success of this strategy is 100% dependent on the CEO. Dude probably just outsourced some labor.

Yeah also...look at it in absolute terms. A $300 car selling for $750. A $3K car selling for $6K. A $15K car selling for $22k. These are not massive numbers. I'd also argue low oil and low interest rates are contributing factors.

The difference is asset prices. Home prices were inflated. Are car prices?

Otherwise, use this as a sounding board. Do some research, post the results, see what the responses are. Also re-read the BAC warrants thread and Eric's thread in the "ask a member" forum. Great way to think about options.

I can't get over the privatized water thing with nestle, but otherwise yea I agree

Everyone says starbucks coffee sucks but they still go there. It reminds me of microsoft: such a good business that even though every single person alive has complained about their operating system at some point, they still buy windows. That's a good business.

Report to moderator. Problem solved. I agree w scorpioncapital. Would love a follow-up from Eric S.

Really? Can you link them? I just went through your entire post history. Aside from one-line repsonses, there was: -one post about you meeting with some dude in toronto who said self-expression is important -one post about you referring to these 300-600% gains in 1 year due to "cultural" changes which weren't detailed -one post about how learning about mental models viscerally was more important than simply reading them and understanding them intellectually/abstractly So I don't doubt you, I just want to learn about these wondrous methods and be able to judge them for myself.

I've noticed it as well on occasion. Some people are a little less evolved for sure. I think on whole the forum is pretty intelligent and usually someone else or myself calls it out. Edit: so I went and read the posts 93/94 in the thread you referenced...and I don't think there was anything wrong. IMHO u are just being too sensitive. Like, if you get upset that a random dude on the internet calls you a bitch or tool...cmon man (or woman), get over it. Also, it was a god-damn politics thread. Just participating is more trouble than its worth.

Is it weird that Hillary has been very quiet on the media front? Trump has interviews, active on social media, etc. I haven't heard much out of Hillary's camp. Is this normal or am I just looking in the wrong places?

Yeah, I'll quote my own post from 2 years ago: Full disclosure: I met a gentleman at the pub last night who was less than excited about Chef's warehouse. Knew personally gentlemen at Sysco, had met Chris P over a long period of time, etc. Very familiar with the industry. Also, very inebriated. Attempting to read through the slurred lines was difficult, but he did allude to the fact that, "I wouldn't put your kids college fund in it". Revenue has improved 200% in 4 years, negligible impact on net income. All you need to know.

kind of hilarious that it's been 6 months now. does it usually take this long for investment managers to respond to interview questions?

Yea I pretty much despise her. Just a really dirty politician. I'm close to going full anarchist and voting Trump just to watch it all burn (something something forest fire, regrowth, something something)

Politicians are politicians are politicians. We have absolutely no idea about these people's true personalities, and it's useless trying to draw conclusions based on the illusion presented on stages and interviews. Also I love the armchair psychology from you guys.