LC

I disagree. Trucks and trains do not travel over the same network.

I pay $75-100/month but I'd love solar panels. I get a ton of sun but would be able to blast the AC more, leave exterior lights on, not be captive to utility companies and complicit in whatever externalities they cause powering turbines with natural gas or whatnot, etc. etc. But I'm also a vain fool who is holding out for solar tiles because I don't want a bunch of panels on my roof, and I usually DIY these types of things so I need time to learn how to install and run it in my spare time. So I'm happy to wait a few years.

Some may find this interesting: A HISTORY & STUDY OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND THE OIL MARKET TODAY https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/4043042/Commentaries/2018.Q1%20Goehring%20&%20Rozencwajg%20Market%20Commentary.pdf

Oh come on, are you serious? How many instances should I cite where energy production or building companies have routinely failed to enforce safety procedures/equipment which have "immediate and visible benefits to human health and safety"? Is it so obvious? People are lazy, stupid, cheap...there are so many reasons for people not to do things which "make sense" for them.

Pretty much. Trucks will continue to handle excess demand, short-distance logistics, etc., but the bulk will still be transported by rail for reasons Cardboard mention.

Caveat: must like thinking and reading.

Fines absolutely should be proportional. Hell, if I'm Citgo, I'd do the exact same thing over and over! At this point, do they even have to stop? The fine may even be cheaper than proper treatment. In terms of lawsuit claims, harmed individuals should show damages. Not very different from an asbestos claim. I don't think I understand your point. As I understand it, the issue here is the judge did not even allowing these people to explore a causal link. The "legal shortcut" here is doing nobody any favors (except Citgo).

I completely agree. Does that mean it shouldn't be done? Or that therefore the victims are not owed any justice? Seems absurd. I did some more digging, here is the issue: The government has calculated that Citgo pulled in $1 billion over the decade it operated its refinery illegally. If U.S. District Court Judge John D. Rainey were to empanel a jury to consider such “pecuniary gain,” Citgo could theoretically pay up to $2 billion in penalties. Rainey has so far declined to establish a jury, ruling that it would prolong the sentencing process. (An irony that isn’t lost on some. “That’s too funny,” said Suzie Canales, an environmental justice activist in Corpus. “People have died waiting for the judge.”) Without a sentencing jury, the judge can levy a maximum fine of only $2 million—a paltry sum compared to the billion the company earned during its criminal activity. And that is exactly what happened: a sentencing jury was not established, the excuse being it would "take too long", and therefore Citgo pays a 0.2% cost-of-doing-business expense. 0.2%!!!

I'm all for civil rights for corporations. I'd just like them to be enforced: Classy. No civil punishment, no criminal punishment. This is the problem - corporations are used as barriers to prevent any real consequence to the individuals that commit crimes. And on this point: Sometimes this is how it works out. Other times these factions collude and monopolize - lobbying to remove regulations, or just flat out ignoring regulations.

Oh man. I really enjoyed his works and philosophy. I even interviewed to join 3rd Ave way back when. RIP

I think it should be all or nothing. Fine with "corporations" having civil rights, but when was the last time a corporation was tried for murder or manslaughter etc.?

WW1 was also pretty devastating. I believe that is where the term shellshock originated. The stigma associated with those suffering was also atrocious.

Bingo Yea but there were issues with that methodology. But I think in general, the spirit of the conclusion is correct: don't ignore posts because they're not generating a big discussion, and evaluate all ideas on their merits, not number of comments.

Well my schedule is opposite yours (I dive right into work and then exercise later), but I enjoy reading after dinner.

Every time I hear this argument I wonder, where do you draw the line? Curious to hear your thoughts.

I usually don't like reproduction value. Like let's say a business makes wallpaper (stealing the example above). Maybe they have 5 factories and ship out from there. So are they worth five factories? Well maybe if you're an entrepreneur and ur going into the wallpaper business maybe you only need 2 factories. What i do like is "put-out-of-business" value. What would it cost for a competitor to put you out of business. I think that's a pretty good idea to have as you triangulate value. It kind of defines the width of the "moat". Oh and maybe that cost isn't to build a competing similar product, maybe it is the cost to develop a new product which makes yours obsolete.

Are you referring to level 2 cash on the balance sheet? If so this might help http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/showthread.php?tid=4969

Concentrate in compounders Diversify in the dump ;D

Ten years though? Imagine a surgeon with ten years of malpractice claims, a cashier with ten years of stealing from the till, a lawyer with ten years of lost case after lost case. Hell, the lawyer example may even be spot on: Imagine those ambulance chasing/daytime TV commercial lawyers who don't charge unless YOU GET PAID! Even if they settle for far less than your claim is worth, they still get paid, exactly like an underperforming fund manager!

Also insurers have inflation on their side. New business is coming in at higher prices than old policies (and claim against) were written.

Agreed. The worst part is, if you're a fund manager, and you underperform for 10 years, how do you sleep at night collecting fees? Now I know this isn't all managers (the reasonable ones have high water marks etc to prevent this kind of thing), but for the ones that sit back and just rake in fees for the service of losing their clients money, that person I particularly despise.

Honestly, this is crazy to me. TEN YEARS???? That's a long time to lose money. Imagine if Buffett underperformed for ten years. No offense to Mr. Chou, whom I've never met but apparently is a great human being, but that is simply too long to keep me as a client. If I invested my money in others, I would give them: -3 years if they are new -5 years if they have a "rock solid" history Otherwise I am out. You're essentially telling me that in 5+ years this person was not able to find a means to make money. I am perfectly capable of under-performing all by myself, thank you very much! :D Frankly, if I were managing other people's money, and I couldn't outperform over a 5 year period, I would consider it theft to keep their money under management.

Perhaps when "madness of the crowd" goes right?

Hahaha ;D

Interesting thing we found was that this is very cultural; folks from the former 'east block' and the various 'asia's' all play the game very differently. The hardest part was always trying to find someone who played the same way you do - but better than you. There's never a Gretzky around when you want one! SD Once I started kicking my old man's butt I would play with a buddy from school - Chinese kid (I'm Italian) - we played completely differently. Went about 50/50 because for the few months that we occasionally played, we couldn't figure out what the hell the other guy was doing. 15 years later we do essentially the same thing for a living. Life is weird but chess may be weirder. ;D