LC

This is a good point and I've thought about it a lot. I think there are a handful of factors at play, including: -ambiguous qualifications of what makes a "good CEO" -the switching cost point you mention -fear of being the odd-man-out (i.e. the owner to take the first step in reducing ceo pay) -an 'old boys club' at the top, where many of these ppl look out for each other vs. meritocracy -the faulty assumption that CEO pay must be in line with company scale (but not other positions) -lack of true attribution - i.e. faulty measurement of what a CEO actually contributes towards company success

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014 But the problem isn’t that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It’s not if, it’s when.

While population growth and access to a higher quality of life will slow, technology will continue to improve and create economic growth (in my view, of course)

Mostly due to technology creating effeciencies and inflation

drink, smoke cigarettes, not a drug user but have used recreationally.

If the government (which is owner of the majority of the tangible/intangible capital in this country) charged market rate for this capital, the cost structure of our entire economy would be different. But they don't, as such we have massive inefficiencies. For example, Walmart employees reduced to food stamps. The government is essentially subsidizing Walmart. Nobody would work these jobs if they all died of starvation in 30 days or so. As a result, Walmart increases their EV by a few % as Don alludes to, and senior management disproportionately benefits.

This is essentially where government needs to step in and tax.

A man is drunk in a bar. Across the bar he sees three heavy set women, speaking with Scottish sounding accents. He makes his way to the women and asks; "Excuse me, are you ladies from Scotland?" The first women gets mad and yells "It's Wales, you ass! Wales!" The man the replies. "I'm sorry, are you three whales from Scotland?"

Do you know why the Amish girl was excommunicated? 2 mennanite

Both companies can grow at 10% if you assume the company with higher IRR (20%) has less investment opportunity than the company with lower IRR. I.e. the lower IRR company can put 2x the money to work. LuxCo - High margin goods (high IRR) - lower volume, higher IRR MassCo - Low margin goods (low IRR) - higher volume, lower IRR Both can grow profits by the same amount per year. LuxCo can only invest 1K. MassCo can invest 2K.

Warren Buffett buys no brainer companies. What is the probability that Warren Buffett's $30B investment in BNSF will go to 0? If something bad happens to rail he'll get a ton of dividends and then probably sell it such that he can break even with dividends. Downside and upside are limited. Anyone can see that at the time of acquisition. What is the probably the Nokia will go to 0 at time of acquisition? I'd say honestly at the time 25%? Someone has tons of cold hard cash and decides to plow it into something like Nokia better know what the hell he is doing. And Ballmer I can argue in hindsight did not. I can argue only a few living gods among us do. Buffett is just one example that the person making a decision is not necessarily responsible for the successful/unsuccessful outcome from that decision. If the gov't decided to nationalize the rail system and break up the oligopoly, is Buffett responsible the same way Ballmer was "responsible"?

I am sorry to say this but this is got to be the worst joke here :) :) :) :) :) Did you hear about the kidnapping in Virginia? Don't worry, he woke up.

The MSFT CEO was 100% responsible for making the decision to buy Nokia which turned out to be a $10B writeoff. Here the CEO's decision cost the company $10B Warren Buffett is 100% responsible for the decision to buy companies. Is the future success (or failure) of those companies 100% attributable to Warren Buffett?

I think the people over-value the contribution of CEOs. If you hire a new CEO and pay him $30mm more than the last CEO, and the new CEO implements a strategy at the $45B EV company that expands the EV by 1%, then the CEO AND the company have made more money. It's not zero sum. Right, because the success of this strategy is 100% dependent on the CEO. Dude probably just outsourced some labor.

Yeah also...look at it in absolute terms. A $300 car selling for $750. A $3K car selling for $6K. A $15K car selling for $22k. These are not massive numbers. I'd also argue low oil and low interest rates are contributing factors.

The difference is asset prices. Home prices were inflated. Are car prices?

Otherwise, use this as a sounding board. Do some research, post the results, see what the responses are. Also re-read the BAC warrants thread and Eric's thread in the "ask a member" forum. Great way to think about options.

I can't get over the privatized water thing with nestle, but otherwise yea I agree

Everyone says starbucks coffee sucks but they still go there. It reminds me of microsoft: such a good business that even though every single person alive has complained about their operating system at some point, they still buy windows. That's a good business.

Is it weird that Hillary has been very quiet on the media front? Trump has interviews, active on social media, etc. I haven't heard much out of Hillary's camp. Is this normal or am I just looking in the wrong places?

kind of hilarious that it's been 6 months now. does it usually take this long for investment managers to respond to interview questions?

Yea I pretty much despise her. Just a really dirty politician. I'm close to going full anarchist and voting Trump just to watch it all burn (something something forest fire, regrowth, something something)

Politicians are politicians are politicians. We have absolutely no idea about these people's true personalities, and it's useless trying to draw conclusions based on the illusion presented on stages and interviews. Also I love the armchair psychology from you guys.

Another way to look at, from an investment opportunity, is find the "old TV" brands that are being lumped in with the dying ones, but which won't hurt as much from industry shift.

How are they value traps? If the business is performing well and they are priced cheaply, isn't that kind of the opposite?