ERICOPOLY

In this case, I think you’re actually adding his old arguments to this one and it makes you take his tone worse off than it is. I will add; Jurgis is totally right. What you are failing to account for is that the machines are not limited to the kinds of data that as humans we have to deal with. They can see all around the car, react effectively instantaneously, etc. They will also be able to predict these situations (lack of visibility of potential incoming objects) and reduce their speed preemptively to compensate. There’s no contest. All that said, it’s still going to be a pain to get the regs through, but it will happen. How about driverless cars that have been hacked? They become drones that seek out pedestrians and run them over deliberately. Driverless car technology currently reads the painted lines on the road -- how does this work when a malicious person has deliberately repainted the road to guide the cars straight off a cliff?

Good, then let's rid ourselves of the hotel tax in order to level the playing field. Probably cutting the vice squad personnel from the police department payroll would offset the drop in revenue. This way your city would be a more fun place to travel to, and your tourist revenue would soar.

Pacqiao's comments about winning the fight and "he was running away" type comments... They were just so blatantly ridiculous that I'm thinking he was coached to begin seeding a rivalry in order to have a rematch with even more dollars at stake. It's got to be rehearsed/scripted and all business when you get this far ahead in the sport -- there's no way that with a $300 million purse there isn't a lot of professional management coaching the post-fight comments.

Perhaps his relatively small amount of earned income is preventing him from qualifying for a 30 year Fannie/Freddie mortgage on the house across the street from him.

Berkshire hit something like $140,000 in late 2007 before falling to $75,000 in early 2009. It doesn't hurt to just look at what happened the last time around.

Interviews post-fight: Mayweather was relatively classy in describing how Pacquiao fought Pacquiao immediately stated that he thought he won the fight, and when asked what he would do now he said he was going on vacation. We were laughing our asses off. 100% NOT the way to do an interview Pacquiao. Pacquiao also looked like a scrub -- Mayweather had his own brand on the hat we was wearing into the ring, whereas Pacquiao was shilling for Geico and Street Fighter. It was like a class war between those two.

They don't hold very much in CAD, do they? Northbridge isn't that big.

From what I understand the utilities don't allow net metering if you have one of these battery systems that you use to charge every night and deplete daily. It has to be strictly backup power source only. This is a concern if you have a solar setup where you sell energy to the grid.

Are you getting one (or more) for your house Eric? Sounds like a no-brainer in California, with such a big difference between the day and night rates. Yes I will be doing this. Not just the big difference in rates, but also the sky-high tax rates. Anything I save on my electric bill is tax-free imputed income. I believe if I spend $9,000 to get 3 of the 7 kWh daily cycle batteries, my bill will go down by $200 a month. I was just inspecting my electric bill a few minutes ago and figured this out. $200 a month is $3,600 a year at 33% capital gain/dividend tax rates. $3,600 a year is 40% pre-tax yield on invested dollar. That's risk-free yield of course -- not like the stock market! Invested capital is recovered (after-tax) in 3.75 years.

They really need to push something like this for RVs. Especially houseboats.

You could invest in a paper and pencil and draw a huge ship's anchor labeled "agriculture" and draw it in the only lifeboat. Then you draw the sinking ship with all the state residents still onboard. Perhaps the drawing could be sold to the AP. The state government has mandated cuts to residential use, but has not mandated any cutbacks to agricultural uses. You cannot, for example, legally water your lawn more than twice a week. But you can still irrigate your alfalfa crop with 5.5 acre feet of water (no restriction on that). Never-mind that cutting back landscaping usage by 50% would only save 6% of the state's water. Let's fight to preserve the exports of alfalfa to Asia instead. They've even made it law that a restaurant cannot serve you water automatically -- you have to ask for it. Umm... really folks???

The almond crop is only worth 0.26% of the state's GDP. Yes, only 2.6 tenths of one percent. Yet we allocate 10% of the state's water to it.

Hey Eric, Do you have a source for that 10% of CA's water being used for Almond farming? Not doubting it, but had never heard that....if that's true, could be a seriously interesting way to bet on continued droughts It's pretty well known if you follow (as I do) the articles all over the place making the same claim. Here is one link: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/_10_percent_of_california_s_water_goes_to_almond_farming.html California water long term is really not a worry for me because the water is certainly here. 80% of the water is spent on agriculture as the state grows 60% of the nation's food. Other states with more water can merely take up the slack and California can cut back. Did you know that California grows 5% of the nation's alfalfa crop? California uses 15% of it's water on alfalfa alone. The alfalfa is mainly used to feed the cows of California's dairy industry. So a way to save 15% of the state's water is to deport the cows to someplace like Wisconsin and just import the milk on refrigerated rail cars. California residents (including businesses and government usage) use only 20% of the state's water. The cows use 15%. Montecito where I live is out of water, so we paid $700 per acre foot to a rice farmer to divert his water that he basically gets for free. That's the main problem here -- it's all distorted by the government which built the reservoirs with taxpayer money. They give away that water to the farmers for practically nothing, and they sell it to us for $700 per acre foot when they aren't otherwise flood-irrigating their land in California's central valley where it is 100 degrees all summer and evaporation is at it's peak. All to grow rice, not the kind that feeds poor families but rather the high grade rice that is served in New York sushi restaurants. It's a messed up system here and it's all because of the agricultural sector getting it's water at a price that doesn't reflect reality. Somewhere to the south of me, in Carlsbad, they are spending $1b to construct a water desalination plant. It will use a huge amount of energy and the operating costs will be about $2,500 per acre foot of potable water produced. The government gives away the water to a rice farmer so he can flood-irrigate his land to grow rice in 100 degree heat, and elsewhere in the same state people have no water and are paying $2,500 per acre foot. It's a stupid system we have here. 160 billion gallons of water are diverted from the Colorado river and exported to Asia (virtually) via the alfalfa that is shipped over to China to feed their cattle. This started happening about 5 years ago due to the empty container ships on the return trip to China (due to the trade deficit). Right, so they only get a $1,000 or so per acre (gross revenue) for that crop and it takes 5.5 acre feet to grow it. That same 5.5 acre feet costs $13,750 to pull out of the ocean in Carlsbad. And Carlsbad is just down the road from where the alfalfa is being grown (to feed cows in China). It's the Imperial Valley Water District that is doing this and they're located just to the north of the Mexican border. Think bloody hot weather to be growing grass (alfalfa). Is the state's water being allocated to the highest-value use? Landscaping and groundskeeping employs 107,000 people. Agriculture employs 180,000 people. About 12% of the state's water goes to landscaping. So effectively when water is diverted from agriculture and used to create more landscaping instead, it creates 4x as many jobs versus if it were left allocated to agriculture.

I eliminated cable last year. The user interface was too frustrating -- I only had a few basic channels and I had to scroll past the hundreds of channels that I didn't subscribe to. I couldn't tell which ones were on my list or not so I'd click on a show and it would then tell me that I didn't pay for that channel. So why the fu** are you showing it to me if I didn't pay for it! Damn that was irritating. Now we have Roku3 and Apple TV to choose from. Usually we go with Amazon via Roku3 but we keep the Apple TV around because we have a bunch of things on iTunes for the kids.

I agree Eric. The fact still remains: in today' market there is no place to hide... you might either choose to hold cash, or you might choose to buy a business which itself is holding lots of cash and is positioned to perform very well in a difficult environment. There are no bargains out there (at least that I know of!). But, if you know a business which is better positioned and more atteactively priced than FFH, I am always interested to know what you think! Cheers, Gio Well, I would just add that there are alternative techniques rather than just choosing companies. I think 2x BAC is more likely to earn 20% than FFH in a muddle-through. Counting the dividends, BAC would generate more than 20% return if trading over $17 in mid-January. It's an annualized return in excess of 30%. But I think FFH will drop 20% from here if there is another crisis that's coming to a head in January, a loss of roughly 27% annualized. The BAC $17 strike call (Jan 2016) can be written for 55 cents and the proceeds will purchase the $14 strike put for $55 cents. So maximum leveraged loss is 20% (assuming no dividends to lessen the blow) -- about the same as what I expect for FFH, although that's the maximum that is possible with BAC. But anyways... there are decent muddle-through returns to be had without risking your entire shirt. FFH likely doesn't have the same muddle-through returns as 20% by next January, because I think most of the multiple expansion has already happened.

Well, if the droughts and higher temperatures are a long-term change for California, then there is some almond farmland to be purchased elsewhere. California grows 80% of the world's almonds and this is using up 10% of the state's water. Over the past 20 years, California's planted almond acreage has doubled. The growth in the almond acreage can't continue at that pace -- there just isn't the water. This means that if you purchase an almond farm in an area with a more secure water supply then you will benefit from the future increases in almond prices (with California's production growth limited by water, then the supply/demand shift will happen and prices will increase).

I believe the problem with global warming is the same as politics. There is a very delayed feedback loop. A voter votes for a terrible politician who creates all sorts of bad problems...but the problems don't manifest themselves for 20 years. That voter doesn't necessarily link their vote and the politician to the problems. If they do some new solution that might create problems is required to fix it, consequences are delayed. Global warming is the same. Something that's a problem right now might not be terrible for 20-30 years. There is no feedback, and it's not immediate so people have a tough time with it. I don't know why using less of things, being more resourceful, and conserving is all that bad. Even if there isn't any global warming those are good things we should be doing anyways. Unless someone is a contrarian to be contrary why is "I just want to waste and use too much of anything for no reason" something anyone strives for? I have no problem with using less of things, recycling, and everyone doing their small part. I do these things myself. What I have a problem with is things like carbon taxes which will not only hurt the economy but give the governments of the world trillions of more dollars to spend on weapons to slaughter people over resources with. No thanks. If it is a problem, and it increasingly looks like it is, then, like any real problem, government does not have the solution. Im not saying global warming is real. Im not saying it is man made. Im also not saying if its real we can do anything to control it or reverse it. All im saying is we cant take a chance. Its like if someone gives you a gun with 1000 chambers and says it has 1 bullet in one of the chambers. He says he will pay you a lot of money to aim it at your head and pull the trigger, would any of you do it? (Only someone who is extremely poor and want to provide for his family might). The odds that the scientists are right is better than 1 in a 1000 and cost is possibly tens or hundreds of million lives. There are plenty of people who work high-risk jobs (Alaskan crab fishermen as an extreme example) because they need to provide for their families. Unfortunately, the world as a whole will probably continue to provide for their families in the high-risk manner to which they are accustomed. For example, people generally aren't going to (willingly) run their businesses on higher-cost but lower risk sources of electricity (like solar power) versus the coal they are currently running their businesses on. For example, Australia: http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/coal-and-where-australia-stands-on-renewable-energy-targets-20140914-10fbp2.html "The Sunburned Country" favors coal over solar energy: In Australia, around 75 per cent of electricity is produced using coal: power stations burn the coal to heat water, creating the steam necessary to spin turbines and generate electricity. And what they don't directly burn, they export for others to burn: Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal with more than half the quantity extracted sent overseas to countries like Japan, China, Korea and India. The resource is worth billions of dollars in income, jobs, tax and royalties, to the Australian economy.

Even though the arctic is warming, it's still bloody cold up there. So if you have some bloody cold arctic air blowing down on you in Michigan is it evidence that the world (including the arctic) is not warming? I haven't seen any disagreement on that issue -- the air blown down on you was arctic air. Here are some headlines about how your cold weather is in fact arctic air: http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2015/02/west_michigans_first_round_of.html http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2015/02/yet_another_blast_of_arctic_ai.html http://www.clickondetroit.com/weather/light-snow-wind-cold-wednesday/30570034

By the end of 2009 Fairfax's stock was priced at $410 with a book value of $369.80. It was 1.1x book value. Five years later at the end of 2014, book value had grown by a cumulative 6.7% to $395. A compound annual growth rate of less than 1.5%. The share price has grown 49% over the same period. 6.7% cumulative increase in book value per share, and rewarded with a share price increase of 49%. Just saying... today's multiple is not a crisis multiple.

Also true at the end of 2007... As the book value was growing, the price of the stock dropped from around $287 at the end of 2007 to around $218 by late summer 2008 (in the days before the short-selling ban). Like Fairfax, there were blue chip companies that never saw an earnings decline (like Coca Cola) and they too had contractions in their market multiples. My guess is that in the next panic the market multiples will once again slip, even for the strongest companies. Including Fairfax.

MJ stores will probably be a net positive for society if they are coupled with a trend of closing liquor stores.

Yes, people do believe that global warming is causing your severe cold weather: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-evidence-link-wavy-jet-stream.html Prolonged cold snaps on the East Coast, California drought and frozen mornings in the South all have something in common – the atmospheric jet stream which transports weather systems that's taken to meandering all over North America. Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis and colleagues link that wavy jet stream to a warming Arctic, where climate changes near the top of the world are happening faster than in Earth's middle latitudes. Color me skeptical. This is coming from academia? I don't trust them at all. What about all the emails at the English University that were released by Russian hackers? How about this?: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3055646/Did-exaggerated-records-make-global-warming-look-worse-Scientists-investigate-adjusted-temperatures-skewed-data.html These guys can't predict the weather more than a day in advance, yet they are confident about predictions 10,20,30+ years in the future? Some of the studies claim the temperature is going to rise by 2 degrees in 30 years and that is going to cause catastrophe? I remember back in the 70's we were facing a global cooling crisis. Then it was acid rain, then the rain forests were going away. By this time, we weren't supposed to have any rain forests left.. I don't buy it... Do you trust the scientists at JPL?

But no mention of how many liquor stores there are within sight of the road. We've got one in Montecito within sight of the road, it's appalling ;) And then there are all the restaurants that serve alcohol with a license, what is the neighborhood coming to. There are many drug users that congregate in these bars to consume their drug, and they openly consume their drug in front of children at restaurants.

Yes, people do believe that global warming is causing your severe cold weather: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-evidence-link-wavy-jet-stream.html Prolonged cold snaps on the East Coast, California drought and frozen mornings in the South all have something in common – the atmospheric jet stream which transports weather systems that's taken to meandering all over North America. Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis and colleagues link that wavy jet stream to a warming Arctic, where climate changes near the top of the world are happening faster than in Earth's middle latitudes.

Although, if you have a 3% income stream of $300,000 and you have it invested in large actively managed mutual funds that merely match the market, that could be stressful. Paying somebody 1% is like giving up a full 1/3 of your income stream. That could be stressful if you think about how much you are paying them for basically generating the same returns you could get from an index fund.