73 Reds

Back to that, are we? C'mon I know you can do better than that!

So I'll take that as a "No". Pesky details; they tend to get in the way of a narrative. At last check countries like Greenland weren't conducting narco-terrorism operations against the US.

Did you read the Indictment?

Too many arepas being exported to the US.

Another largely useless entity, LOL? Even World reaction is so predictable it is uncanny: Disdain from the usual misfits (Russia, Iran, Mexico) and two-faced reaction from the EU which can't seem to get out of its own way.

Right. Why is it that a certain segment of the population always stands up for the bad guy and questions good vs. evil. Like clockwork, the Dems could not hold back. Meanwhile in NYC Mamdani will soon be inciting riots or worse and they will look the other way.

Yeah, but the issue is whether to remove them from a current equity index. IMO that would be silly unless you believe they quickly go from the best performers to the worst.

@Castanza Thanks for posting that. There is a lot in that picture to ponder, whether it be individual companies, industries, trends, etc... And not sure why I'd want to exclude any of the companies - even from as far back as 40 years ago (well, maybe Kodak which would have long since been replaced anyway) - from a broad based equity index worth buying today.

Personally I just want to see the company become increasingly more valuable, irrespective of what the share price may be on any given day. Same way I approached Berkshire. Once management starts to run out of investment ideas, then pay a dividend.

If we are merely advocating, I'd prefer no dividend period, especially as long as the TRS is in place. Alternatively, I'd like to see the regular dividend replaced by special dividends in varying amounts at the discretion of management.

For me it was the combination of Buffett and Munger. Buffett taught me about investing but Munger taught me more about life.

@Viking good for you! If I had to guess, my returns this year were similar to yours. Once you focus on preserving wealth and lifestyle, yearly returns become somewhat mundane. As for me, I have not had a down year this century; the reason I know that is I haven't drawn a paycheck since the 1990s and all of my income since the last job has been derived from investments, some more passive than others. My net worth has risen each and every year, some years rather significantly. So I guess it is the trajectory, rather than nominal returns that become important once you reach a certain goal.

Interesting pair trade. Some decades ago I did a similar thing with BRK and SPY. Can't recall exactly how I did overall but the fact that I stopped doing it suggests it wasn't terribly worthwhile.

Well, only to be outdone by the proposed $5M reparations bill proposed for each San Francisco's black resident who has evidently been subject to more discrimination than any other person in the U.S. who has been discriminated against. I'd be all for it if it came from the coffers of corrupt politicians like fellow San Fran resident Nancy Peolosi who fittingly may even qualify for the billionaire tax.

How I wish that Charlie Munger was still here.......

AI suggests there are between 200 and 250.

How many billionaires even are there in California? This looks to apply only to a select few and it would be hard to imagine they will accept this sitting down. It looks ripe for challenges in so many ways. I'll take the under.

Nukes today are 100% a deterrent for all but extremist regimes. Didn't think this required explanation or was subject to debate.

I think investing started out as Buffett's sole purpose but as he grew older he morphed into more of a teacher. But I agree that money is far down the list of what is important, particularly once you have enough.

My theory is there are more extremes in the U.S. than in Canada, on both sides for nearly everything, be it behavior, acceptance, risk-taking, etc.. These extremes work both ways, providing opportunity for positive and negative consequences. So culturally we are much more willing to take the bad with the good. Doesn't make one country better than the other.

Wrong. Nukes are intentionally built as weapons of mass destruction. And you think my logic is off?

OK, so if the bad guys have guns so should those of us who want guns for protection. Prohibition didn't work to prevent alcohol consumption so why would restrictive gun laws prevent bad guys from acquiring guns? We need to treat the bad guys, many of whom are guilty of poor mental health, poor upbringings, poor education, or a combination thereof. Its not the guns.

Canadians by and large are nice. But I don't know what a "good" gun death is. The goal for anyone but bad guys is not to inflict maximum harm and death. That's precisely why I want a gun - to hopefully offset any threat. Doesn't even mean I have to use it. The idea that someone coming to steal my wallet would cause me to shoot them dead is kind of silly in and of itself; all depends on every other fact and circumstance surrounding the incident and the level of perceived threat to life and limb. Most people don't carry much in their wallets worth stealing anymore. Instinct suggests that most gun deaths are due to some other cause. The goal is not to become a victim of whatever that cause may be.

Rudimentary training is required everywhere as far as I know. The actual extent of what is mandatory varies by State. Easy enough to look up if you're interested.

Hard to respond to that(!) So I won't. But guns don't kill; people do. Restricting guns only helps the bad guys. There are countries like Israel where literally everyone born and raised there owns or owned a gun. You can't walk down the street for 5 minutes without seeing someone carrying an oozie. Yet almost no gun deaths except in Arab villages. So like I said before, I don't criticize you or anyone for not owning a gun or wanting to be prepared to use one. But don't blame those of us who do.