LC

Perhaps in a truly anarchist society like the one you propose, slavery would arise as the naturally strong prey on the weak. Perhaps only through the collective agreement of humans (aka politics) would the unsavory aspects of human nature be limited. And the removal of a state is going to solve this? "rights" don't exist in an anarchistic state. it only takes 1 person to think it's OK for them to do it. My question was relatively loaded because before "states" and "governments" existed, a "stateless" society existed. We lived in caves and hunted and gathered. But even in those days social structure existed. Maybe it wasn't an "official state" but there was a political process and agreed upon rules. And forms of "taxation". No, the IRS didn't come after you but you sure as hell better save some of your seeds with the village otherwise you will be ostracized.

I personally really hope Sanders wins, I think he's the best candidate the US has had since I've been alive. What makes you think Sanders is moronic? He's a socialist. It's extremely evident any socialistic system is sub-optimal by definition but people keep trying it because it matches their definition of fair (where fair is condired equality). Striving for equality is stupid. The more equal they make the lower incentive for skilled individuals to do anything of value. Motivation to do good is not intrinsic. This is such a black and white picture you are painting...First, the US is not a purely capitalist country. Look at the major government programs to see that. Second, unfettered capitalism has been shown to be both productive and destructive. Sometimes, very destructive. Reasonable regulation seems like the best option. Sanders has 8 main proposals (https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/) Most of them seem reasonable to me. Frankly, the bigger issue is how much money is being siphoned away through tax-avoidance. I mean, some of them are even "anti-socialist". For example cutting government handouts to O&G companies: (http://www.foe.org/news/archives/2015-04-sanders-ellison-introduce-bill-to-end-135-b-in-fossil-fuel-handouts). I'm not exactly sure where you see the downfall of the American entrepreneurial spirit fitting into the above. What I see is stopping a lot of rich, powerful groups from avoiding reasonable taxes which are causing a lot of the income inequality and social strife in this country.

What makes you think Sanders is moronic?

Not sure if you're serious...but if so, that is such an illogical argument. Illogical if you want the system "to work" whatever that means to you, but not illogical at all if you're goal is the crumbling of the system. The more hatred and disgust politics engenders the less people will look to it to solve problems. The best outcome possible is for people to think of politics as a nasty process that is irrelevant to their lives and to dismiss it completely. Just curious if you can point to any human society that functioned well with this type of structure.

I agree: he was correct on the fundamentals and probably lucky on the timing. Im sure others were correct on the fundamentals but unlucky on the timing.

No way, Hillary is such a typical politician: tell everyone what they want to hear (integrity be damned) and line your pockets/accumulate power in the process. Give me a break. IMHO Bernie is the best candidate, but I am open to dis-confirming evidence!

Not sure if you're serious...but if so, that is such an illogical argument.

Unless they disagree with your preconceived notions!!!

Threats to business model: - perhaps their giant logistical/infrastructure moat isn't so deep and wide as you think. How much would it take Costco/Walmart to develop what Amazon has in terms of warehouse technology? - they operate in retail, notoriously a super difficult business. they've operated in retail for years, with not much profit to show for it. - lone data point: they started selling books online. now they'e building bookstores. perhaps retail tastes are changing AWAY from online shopping. what will that do to amazon? answer: leave them with a bunch of underutilized operating leverage. #cutsbothways Threats to investment: - i see a giant red flag when i hear things like, "valuing it on TTM revenue/cash flow simply doesn't work"

That's exactly why, performance sucks and if it sucks bad enough it's too deep of a hole to ever climb out of. Instead it's easier to just shut down for some reason and re-open and hope you do better the second/third/fourth/whatever time around. That is so disingenuous...it's pretty gross IMHO. If performance sucks so bad you can't recover, your career as a money manager should mimic that.

Did he close up his old shop due to bad performance? I don't understand why some people do that. Why not just maintain one fund so it's easier to track your performance as an investor (unless of course you suck).

With 100B he could buy Nike, Starbucks, or 3M. I mean, wow.

Thanks for the analysis, still digesting your conclusions.

His candidness is refreshing. The honesty and clarity is just amazing. I read the guy's conference calls because I want to. I have a freaking man crush over here. My dream as (a fellow italian) is to sip espresso, smoke a cigarette, and read the paper like 10 feet from him. And then get into a really loud argument with him over pasta.

Funny, I actually mentioned Iconix in the Valeant thread. Very similar situation IMHO.

Spinning off another (better?) businss to current shareholders, the majority of who are the Agnellis. Does Fiat own any other random businesses unrelated to mass-market cars?

Good point and in general I agree with you. What keeps me from even considering VRX is management's shadiness. Intellectually, that seems like a pretty decent reason to pass.

Who needs all that when you've got this: http://www.canadianbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/66-michael-pearson-08661185-ryan-remiorz-cpimages.jpg

I'm definitely not above getting ideas from someone else. I just can't figure out how to do it successfully. Every freaking time I've tried "cloning", EVEN with doing my own work, I fuck it up because I figure, "well XYZ is invested and they probably know more than me so even despite all this bad stuff happening it will probably work out", and then I lose my shirt. So now I do stupid lazy screeners and some basic fundamental analysis and don't try to shoot the moon.

Jeeze this is ridiculous. There's literally thousands of companies to look at and some people just get their jaws clenched on one thing and won't let go.

!!! I was so bearish I'm pretty sure Leo DiCaprio owes me a beer.

I mean, that's insurance in general. This is why insurance is so tightly-regulated.

What I highlighted above in your quote is an ethical issue, not an issue with the rules governing GAAP or IFRS (the two major accounting standards). Nobody is going to teach you in a classroom that you shouldn't accept a bribe in exchange for moving liabilities off the balance sheet.

Accounting classes are mostly cookie-cutter. The stuff doesn't change very often and most aspect have stringent rules to follow. You can probably teach it yourself if you have the inclination. He's talking about ethics, not accounting. Yea I think you're being overly dramatic here. Bullshit accounting? What? Accounting rules don't change whether you learn it from Tyco University or straight from Munger's mouth. Double-entry bookkeeping is about as good as it gets. GAAP accounting is pretty damn good. The problem is, people will simply lie to steal people's money. That's called ethics and is much more difficult to teach.

sell shovels to them: commercial lease brokerage bankruptcy/tax services etc.