Liberty

Someday Roger Lowenstein and Alice Schroeder will write books about this :D

http://bankinnovation.net/2014/09/apple-said-to-negotiate-deep-payments-discounts-from-big-banks/

I do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/technology/apple-smartwatch-and-bigger-iphones-to-be-introduced.html?_r=0

Where I live, there are no water meters for residential customers. Everybody pays the same, so basically those who save are subsidizing those who waste. It's a terrible system. But I still conserve water as much as possible because I find waste inelegant, and I get some psychological benefits from conserving. But most people aren't like that, so I really hope we'll get water meters soon... Even if there's plenty of fresh water around here, running treatment plants is still expensive, and the more efficiently you use water, the longer you can go between building expensive new treatment plants. I really wish gray water systems and small-scale rainwater collection were more widespread. It's crazy to flush your toilet and water your lawn with potable water treated to the same standard as the water you drink... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greywater

Can't you already pay more to have a Fedex or UPS guy come to you for pickup? They might not bring a box and wrap the thing, though.

It's hard to say, but I think he's a long-term kind of guy, so it could just be that he see things just continuing to go well overall for the indeterminate future. He made a lot of cash with the recent special dividends, so it could just be that he wanted to reinvest some of his new liquidity.

Seems like Commercehub is all about agglomerating many companies together to get economies of scale, while Shyp has a different dynamic and won't benefit from growing. The more customers it has, the more courriers it needs, and the more complex its logistics become... Not sure it's a good idea. But I'll admit I skimmed the article and maybe they have a solution to this that I haven't seen.

There was also a presentation by the QVC CEO this morning. Last I checked the audio wasn't available yet, but it should pop up here at some point: http://ir.libertyinteractive.com//eventdetail.cfm?eventid=149438

Out of curiosity, what would be "more reasonable" for you? Are you looking for a specific multiple?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-09-04/appaloosa-s-tepper-says-u-dot-s-dot-bond-rally-ending-as-ecb-cuts-rates

30 years? Sure. 5-10 years? Not so sure. Renting for a few years while waiting for house prices to be at more historical levels could certainly beat buying at the top, even if you don't sell for 30 years. Some might call it market timing, but I don't think so. It's bottoms up, just like not buying companies that you find too expensive. Right now I find houses too expensive where I live (and I don't even live in one of the most expensive areas of Canada). I also wouldn't buy a Honda Accord for $70k, that's not market timing...

But that's assuming that you will have capital gains. If you assume capital losses over the next few years, it might look a lot less attractive.

What's wrong with paying rent if it's properly priced? I'm renting right now, and it's a much better deal than buying.

But if you buy at the top and a $3m house is worth $3m in 20 years (not adjusted for inflation), that's not such a great deal. People who bought in Toronto at the end of the 80s had to wait almost 15 years to break even.

From tom's other thread, I thought this also belonged here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/11/global-house-prices

It's happening! Congrats! :D

I don't understand what it has to do with what the article was about. Granted, it was way too prolix, but all its saying is that inflation can have all kinds of effects on all kinds of people, and that the short-hand of "inflation = bad" is too reductive. If it was universally bad, the fact that the dollar has probably lost over 90% of its value over the past 100 years (or whatever) would probably be a catastrophe, yet we're much better off. Also, places with deflation aren't exactly doing better in real terms than places with inflation. What matters is the real economic stuff going on underneath whatever nominal amounts you use to exchange goods and services. You're reading way too much into what I wrote, by the way. I'm not saying inflation is good. I'm saying it's more complicated than that.

I was just about to post that :)

But I am saying inflation (too high) is universally bad. In what sense is inflation good? If I understand what you are saying then by his argument Stalin can be considered a great man because there are still russians today who celebrate his reign. Of course they were the people who didn't wind up in the gulags, they benefited from the slave labour. Capitalism breaks down when you have runaway inflation. I mean bribery can be considered good for the civil servants. But really, except for a select few like a tinpot dictator, everyone suffers under bribery and corruption in the long run. Same for inflation. I have no idea what you're talking about. Did you even read the linked article? It's just saying that inflation can be bad, neutral, or good. It depends on what economic actor you are and what it is that becomes more expensive. If your wages inflate faster than the prices of the things you buy, inflation is good for you. And anyone's higher price is someone else's higher revenue. Over the past 100 years, how much less can you buy for a dollar? Yet are people living better or worse? What matters in the end is the value that you produce and get, not how many nominal dollars you get and spend.

http://www.sequoiafund.com/fund-reports.htm

Randomep, the article doesn't say that inflation can't be bad. But everybody likes it when it is their wages that inflate.

Thanks, good read.

"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." I think that goes for management too. There are lots of ways to be bad.