73 Reds

But changing one's mind requires a reason. There is no reason evident today for this poster.

That's not a default. When did $1 not buy $1 worth of goods or services? Few folks, if any were bothered when we went off the gold standard. Why should the value of our currency be defined in terms of gold anyway?

Yeah, but that's not likely to change. In baseball, teams are not judged by how much money they make. They are judged by winning. Trump's only been winning all his life - often against long odds. Toronto paying Vlad Jr. $1/2 billion not to win makes little sense, particularly when you consider that the Blue Jays are usually looking up at the Rays - the team's entire annual payroll is about twice what Vlad, Jr. makes.

At last check, the Blue Jays are not a terribly competitive baseball team. Meaning the team's management is not terribly effective. Perhaps they could learn a thing or two from Trump.

The highly imperfect place we Americans call home gives us the right to make bad decisions. Wouldn't trade it.

You're entirely correct about the last 15 years. (Wish we could invest retrospectively).

Maybe it is better than gold in the short run - I won't argue the point. But my view of BTC is like a long term option with mostly time value, i.e. buy the story but likely sell the news.

I disagree. Cash is useful, reliable over short enough periods of time to be effective, and transparent in terms of its value relative to other currencies. It is also relatively stable - again, enough to be useful. There is no certainty whatsoever about BTC. For my purposes the backing of the dollar is far more valuable than any backing associated with BTC. Yet just like I wouldn't hold cash or gold with any expectation of price appreciation or as a store of value, I won't hold BTC.

Full faith and credit of the issuer backs the cash. That is the contractual obligation which has never been violated by the US. Cash has no intrinsic value; never said that it did. Something is valuable/and can be paid by the backing that it has. The "value" of such backing can be debated but to suggest that cash has no backing is simply not correct.

See, that's where we share a different opinion. There has been no default (by the US, anyway). When does $1 not buy an item that costs $1? My belief is you confuse default with inflation. I don't know anyone who stores their dollars in a mattress or safety deposit box. Dollars get used and remaining dollars can be invested. The issue is, is BTC a better way to avoid inflation than anything else? I think not.

Seems like you answered the basic question: What do companies generate? Hopefully, cash. And why is cash valuable? Look no further than the contractual obligation written on each note. Its really that straight forward for many of us.

I think one issue is how much deference Abel pays to Berkshire's existing positions once Buffett is gone. Hard to tell but "retaining the culture" does not necessarily mean holding on to marginal businesses, whether they be stocks or operating companies - particularly if the first generation is already gone IMO. We'll also have to wait and see how much more aggressive Greg is than Buffett (if at all) in making attempts to acquire new operating companies. Waiting by the phone works about as well as sifting through old S&P manuals looking for stocks.

Way (WAY!) too many assumptions necessary, starting with the assumption that Abel's influence can do nothing to boost earnings now.

Live each day like you won't be here forever.

Berkshire also demonstrates, and is itself a great example of the value of deferred taxes.

Yep. Current holdings are those left over from a lot of investing mistakes made in my youth and/or lessons learned from those mistakes.

As previously posted, I only own a handful or two of stocks and the thesis hasn't changed, or at least not enough to sell and incur a large tax bill.

I buy stocks occasionally when they are on sale but haven't sold a stock outside of a small retirement account since the turn of this century. Does that qualify?

I think collectibles, particularly unique collectibles fall into a different category. BTC, gold etc.. don't fit. People own collectibles for reasons that often extend far beyond the price they fetch.

Can't blame you for that! But I think both you and your spouse are each entitled to your own exemption if you own assets individually. I believe you are referring to the unlimited marital deduction which is not applicable to non-US citizens.

Yeah, if it was viewed as more like insurance than a vested benefit, maybe it would be more palatable. Pay in and hope you don't need it but if you do, its there for you.

Maybe not, but at least it might give them reason to reconsider.

What about a means test for receiving social security? Many people I know laugh at the idea that they receive a monthly check. Or apply it as a credit toward your tax bill if you don't need it and won't miss it anyway.

Yes, a tax return is required but IMO there is a near-0% chance that current estate tax treatment is not extended, and likely made permanent by this Congress.

It all seems unlikely but something has to change. Even low paying manufacturing jobs combined with a sensible legal immigration policy would be very helpful. Neither party has been able to address these issues because each party's priority is to fight the other for control. Your guess is as good as mine where this goes but the status quo was simply not acceptable.