LC

Yeah agreed and TBH does it really make a difference? Are we going to see revenues/profits materially change from adding or removing DEI/ESG? Of course not. It's just window dressing. On rates...it's complicated and I know where you stand. I think in general we need to give a little to get a little. Want lower rates to help the low income groups? 100% - I'm right there with you. Problem is it causes inflation and asset bubbles (which disproportionately benefit the rich) - so maybe raise taxes on the upper income tiers and remove some tax loopholes to compensate It's like if Trump and Bernie combined their economic policies. Frankly I'd pay good money to see those two running the country together.

Yeah I mean I am totally in support of remove the race element and replacing it with an income/wealth element. Last week Mcdonalds CEO gave an interview with how they see the consumer economy - essentially the well-off are continuing to thrive, while those earning <100K are struggling, even skipping meals like breakfast. To me that is the problem to solve, I don't care what label you want to put on the solution- as long as it works.

Yeah I really don't see the major DEI impact you guys are alluding to. I work with a bunch of Asians and Indians. Not because of DEI but because of outsourcing ($$) and because they're smart as hell. That's the market, folks. And I haven't met a single smart white or asian kid whose education was hampered by DEI. In fact most of the people I knew who got into tier 1 ivy leagues were rich white kids admitted via legacy, not merit. My point is if you want to label DEI as racism, you need to at least acknowledge the centuries of racism that led to it. When did redlining stop? 1968 - talk about families sticking together...difficult when banks wouldn't lend to parents to buy a home.

Sure but it's OK for you to ignore centuries of systemic and institutional racism and the generational impacts that has created.

hah I am not that interesting, trust me!

And by the way, I don't really think of it as a racial issue - although race is an easy proxy. I'd also be just as happy for a PWT (poor white trash) initiative! My point is the path upwards for the middle and lower classes is getting worse and worse - I'd be OK to give them handout management jobs at the expense of a portion of the existing management/executive class. I mean, existing management is pretty much just welfare handouts for the friends/relatives of people in upper social classes, anyways. Case in point - I think I told this story before but an old friend was a professional dominatrix. Very wealthy clients. One eventually made her chief marketing officer of one of his companies. Experience? None. Education? None. And by the way, she grew up broke and is now a millionaire. Was this a handout? Well, I wouldn't dare guess where those hands have been!

Sure and a libertarian society works in theory. In the real world, DEI initiatives are low impact: -To their mission that they provide value: Maybe? They certainly don't correct for nearly all of the structural issues facing poor minorities. -To their criticism that they reduce talent: Maybe? I haven't heard a single company complain that sales, margins, etc. are suffering because of DEI talent (or lack thereof). I think of it like this - half the management and executive suite in corporate america is overpaid, underperforms, and could probably be replaced with Google's AI. So I really don't care who gets those jobs. And so if 10% of them go to minority groups who empirically have more obstacles to overcome just to get their foot in the door, well I am OK with that. Here's an example: Mark Mason is a black guy from Queens who is the CFO of Citi. Replace him with Charles Chesterworth Sr. from Westchester and what changes? Absolutely nothing at all. Replace them both with a well designed prompt from Google Gemini and we'd probably see more buybacks

Why didn't they remove DEI programs in 2024? Why haven't all companies removed DEI programs, if they don't work? Costco for example has publicly declared they are retaining their DEI initiative. Is Costco just poorly run? Isn't a more realistic scenario that DEI programs are being removed because some companies want to appeal to the Trump administration?

Amazing, considering America's university system and tech industry are best-in-class globally and seen as major drivers of America's continued success. Throw in the other area of American leadership: the armed forces, which is also becoming more diverse...and maybe Trump shouldn't fix something that ain't broke!

Sure, if you want to define it as "meritocracy" being a function of being born into a stable, supportive environment. I would agree quite a bit with that statement. DEI is a small way to correct for the randomness of that, because as you point out certain groups have a smaller chance of being born into a stable and supportive environment. The other way to look at the argument is recalling what corporate america looked like before wide adoption of DEI initiatives: incredibly homogeneous, and also not fully merit-based.

Haha well yes, point taken. When it comes to their net worth and inheritance those guys are just as political (hypocritical) as their counterparts on the right.

And we'll make sure they never do, under a police state! Anyways I'm just taking your argument to extremes, because essentially the ends don't always justify the means. And on the tax point - half the issue is "the rules for thee not for me" angle. The Waltons, Musks, Gates families, etc. will be passing down more wealth in a tax advantaged manner, versus what everyone on this forum will collectively owe to the IRS, ever. That is the real issue and is why nobody should feel bad trying to minimize their own income.

Real easy way to reduce almost all violent crime is just to imprison everyone. What, you don't support that? Well you must not really want to reduce violent crime. C'mon.

The military attracts new recruits when the economy is underperforming for the lower wealth groups. The USA has become more insular, more protectionist, and more closed-off. That is not a position of strength, that is a position of weakness.

There have been decades of study on this topic, a famous one done by Harvard called the opportunity atlas. Or you could just ask Gemini:

Of course. Your anecdote is correct. The data is incorrect.

On the flip side, the "merit" part of meritocracy is indistinguishable from zip code.

Watch out - Trump may declare this a National Emergency and release the Nat'l Guard for 29 days to takeover

They're probably betting it will play out like search. In the early days of search, results were not really different between the various search engines. Eventually, one search engine took all the economics.

Isn't this a State's rights issue? said zero people on the right. This must be one of those "State's rights" we don't agree with, so it doesn't matter!

https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar4837d973 Embarrassing

Gotta love that special flavor of American irony of giving your rights away for free, then whining about big government. Show me those papers, punk!

Thanks @fareastwarriors I kind of agree especially around corporate adoption. I recall a decade or so back, google was trying to take share from microsoft office with google drive, google sheets, etc. It never really panned out. If models do become commoditized, the same could happen which would probably mean shares today are a steal. I was thinking of using LEAPs or other options to express the trade. Of course as you mention the opposite could occur, if the market sees a drop in subscribers/sales, it will be a bloodbath as the stock gets dumped. So downside protection is very important. Maybe even just buying puts with proceeds from selling OOM calls?

What are your thoughts here? I’ve nibbled but would like to see insiders step up in size.

Thanks both on the tax explanation. I wonder if you could play games with illiquid securities to effect exactly the situation you are hypothesizing with $5M of undervalued Berkshire shares.