physdude

That is sarcasm, right? (I think it almost definitely is, but just wanted to make sure)

There is some evidence that there might have been a decent amount of buybacks in Q2 - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-reduces-share-160700854.html . 19,000 A shares is a decent buyback and above my diminished expectations after the AGM but I would have really liked 20-30 billion dollars of them at these really low prices.

It's not possible that you have your causation backwards? Physdude makes an excellent point. Almost nobody is talking about Vietnam. A country with 90MM people and 0 Covid deaths. Europe and the Americas failed to control the virus. And they paid the price with heavy lockdowns, deaths, and staggering economic and social costs. How many times do I need to make the following point. I am NOT arguing FOR causation. Therefore I cannot have something "backwards". I am arguing that there is a LACK of [demonstrated] causation. Big difference. I am not particularly familiar with Vietnam or the mitigation efforts they pursued. You might want to consider two more basic attributes, however: 1. Demographics - Vietnam has a much much younger population than all western countries; and 2. Weather - Hanoi is 21 degrees north vs NYC 41 degrees north You know who else avoided Covid: Eritrea, Syria and Zimbabwe. These are barely functioning countries. I doubt there was much of a well coordinated lockdown strategy. It's something else. Perhaps it makes sense to then learn about their approach if you don't know much about it? Zero fatalities and a very small number of cases are not explained by latitude or weather or age profile - good polices and governance are the only reasonable explanation. Why don't you also consider other places that avoided Covid - Taiwan, HK, Macao etc.? Those three are very much highly functioning countries (and have one thing in common - they constitute Greater China which means that they have a lot of interaction with China) but are inconsistent with your narrative.

I think you need to add contact tracing too. Largely, the places that have done well have done that. This. A lot of countries have done extremely well due to quick lockdowns when it mattered most and aggressive contract tracing after that. Even the aggressive contact tracing was largely unneeded in countries that locked down quickly enough like Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, New Zealand etc. Some of these countries even got away without a single fatality. Malaysia, where I live, escaped relatively lightly even though it locked down late due to excellent contact tracing, especially of a major initial cluster of several thousand generated from a single infected person in a large religious event. I didn't have much hope of them contact tracing tens of thousands of people from there but, amazingly, they have and new cases have gone down to the low double digits per day now and declining -despite- lifting most of the lockdown restrictions. This is because they had the good sense to lift them only after an effective contact tracing effort was in place. Hopefully, the good results continue but they have surprised me significantly on the positive side so far as I have been waiting for the shoe drop that never came after restrictions were relaxed and then almost completely lifted for domestic travel and activities. The lockdowns are much less use if they are imposed late and lifted before effective contact tracing is in place. Everyone here seems to use only OECD countries for their analysis but they are definitely not the best examples. China is actually a much better example where the lockdown was late by definition because it was new and they were the first to have to deal with it. However, their contact tracing and testing has been very effective and the very few number of cases and fatalities since the lockdown was lifted shows the effectiveness of their approach. (I know, the Western attitude is that it is all lies but my friends living in China and leading pretty normal lives and traveling and touring there makes me discount that more or less completely.) The harsh truth is that North and South America and Western Europe (and also probably South Asia) have handled this poorly both in terms of locking down too late and, in some cases, lifting lockdowns before effective contact tracing was in place (looking at the US here, apparently Western Europe is doing better). It is almost surreal to me that Malaysia, which is corrupt and undergoing constant political upheaval (there was a change of govt right when COVID struck which almost definitely delayed the lockdown), has done so much better than the US or Western Europe.

How do you know the Chinese were the aggressors? It always takes two parties to get a bar fight and finding out who started it is usually an exercise in futility. Isn't China building islands in South China Sea to claim more territory? Trying to push around Hong Kong, Taiwan? Who is India trying to take over? As far as I understand, the reason for the China-India conflict is because India is building airports and highways near its border and China threatened a war to stop India from building those, because China was not happy that India could use these facilities to quickly move troops to the border if a war breaks out. However, China already built the high speed trail and highway network near this border on its side, and India is building the highway and airport in its own territory, not in the questionable territory. But that's just the excuse. I think the real reason is that Xi wants a war to grab full control of the army, and there is no negotiation with India that could give him this. muscle, I give you a lot of credit for calling it like it is and not having a lot of bias from your home country. That is rare but it is appreciated. Thanks. I now lower the probability of war to 5% after learning more details. They first had an accident in the disputed territory and 3 Indian soldiers fell off the cliff and died, and the Chinese army promptly retreated. Then the Indian soldiers vowed to revenge, and they took big blade weapons and went into the actual Chinese territory, not the disputed territory, and killed 40 Chinese soldiers. 17 of the Indian soldiers died in the fight. That's invasion. It is ugly. Now I understand why the Chinese government remained silent on this matter now. If it speaks publicly about what happened, since an invasion actually happened, it has to do something about it. Otherwise its people will be pissed off. The fact that China wants to down play this invasion makes me think they don't want a war yet. If that is true, that is a seriously dumb move by the Indians. While both sides will suffer in a war, India will have it much worse given its more fragile economy and also given its rapidly worsening COVID situation.

Yup, I know it is absolutely crazy but something like 44% of republicans have been found to believe Bill Gates is planning to implant microchips in everyone via vaccines. Don't know whether to laugh or cry at that one. See https://www.bbc.com/news/52847648 and https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-vaccine-conspiracy-theories-are-stupid-2020-6 for some of the craziness. The bricks come in within all these theories because Bill Gates apparently hates and is scared of Trump (who might expose and counter him as the story goes) and wants to damage him by making the protests violent. That is about as far as I can figure out since they don't make much sense overall (some claim that Bill Gates wants to kill 15% of all people via vaccinations but some don't so there is quite a bit of variation to this nonsense).

Umm, I don't understand retard that well so maybe someone can help me out. What does Bill Gates have to do with it? You have to get with the program - Bill Gates and Huawei have caused Covid with their vaccines and 5G towers and are well on the path to killing off a large part of the world's population and controlling the rest etc etc. (That is obviously sarcasm, but not really that far off from the conspiracy theories that I have seen being sent around Whatsapp, FB etc. - it is kind of scary that some people I know actually buy into this stuff.)

Well, there is clny to give them some stiff competition though the egregious behaviour with regards to excessive compensation and a general lack of shareholder respect was more obvious when it is was Northstar realty prior to becoming Colony.

LOL. How about ban cars? Why abortions? The ultimate political hijacking thwarted (I hope). Covid 19 has killed more than cars. Abortion has killed more than covid19. Keep in mind, my argument isn't just saving lives, it's also about what the government say we can (or cannot do) to our bodies. Why is it okay to use the slogan only when it benefits your political ideology? Are you seriously comparing the cost (human, not financial though that also probably applies) of having an abortion and not wearing a mask??? Further, the mask is probably going to save the health of many people at very little cost and inconvenience to the wearer. I am also curious about what you think of the modesty laws which are more stringent in the US than Europe? Why are those laws okay when it concerns your body and why haven't there been many protests encouraged by the president on that incredible violation of freedom compared to the simple requirement to wear a mask? I would argue the human cost is far, far higher with abortion than covid19 (so far anyway). financially? I don't know. I haven't thought much about modesty laws. I don't see how what to wear (or not) is violating "speech" though. I am talking about the cost incurred of wearing a mask vs that incurred by an abortion. The former is almost costless and has a significant benefit while the latter has a very high cost. The only reason not to wear the mask given the low cost of the effort seems to be the disrespect of the health of others. It is really very similar to the wearing of a seatbelt - very low cost and increases your and other's safety tremendously (especially if everyone is involved in not wearing the mask as that reduces R0 tremendously and stops the pandemic in the tracks). Also, how is required wearing of a mask violating free speech any more than the modesty laws? The banning of hijabs etc is a much more direct violation of free speech but I usually see little objection to that, especially among the right wing (though this is only an issue in Europe). Wouldn't you say that abortion is very disrespectful to the health of the one being aborted? I would think that banning abortion would be far less expensive than using masks. You could ban them for free. Masks aren't free. I also don't see why wearing seat belts is required if people want "choice." I just find it funny that people want government to control others when it suits their interests/wants but not in areas that they don't want to be told what to do. It doesn't make much sense. That depends on whether you consider there to be a person involved at all in the case of abortion. Does using a condom become disrespectful to the potential persons? Strawman much?? :) But more importantly, the mask concretely reduces the infection of potentially hundreds of actual human beings, not just one, with many super spreader events having infected at least hundreds of people. The economic benefit of a single disposable mask in terms of human has been estimated to be at least several thousand dollars. Looking at your responses, it is no wonder the ultra right wing has been urging its people to actively spread covid among minorities and to stop people wearing masks (survival of the fittest?).

LOL. How about ban cars? Why abortions? The ultimate political hijacking thwarted (I hope). Covid 19 has killed more than cars. Abortion has killed more than covid19. Keep in mind, my argument isn't just saving lives, it's also about what the government say we can (or cannot do) to our bodies. Why is it okay to use the slogan only when it benefits your political ideology? Are you seriously comparing the cost (human, not financial though that also probably applies) of having an abortion and not wearing a mask??? Further, the mask is probably going to save the health of many people at very little cost and inconvenience to the wearer. I am also curious about what you think of the modesty laws which are more stringent in the US than Europe? Why are those laws okay when it concerns your body and why haven't there been many protests encouraged by the president on that incredible violation of freedom compared to the simple requirement to wear a mask? I would argue the human cost is far, far higher with abortion than covid19 (so far anyway). financially? I don't know. I haven't thought much about modesty laws. I don't see how what to wear (or not) is violating "speech" though. I am talking about the cost incurred of wearing a mask vs that incurred by an abortion. The former is almost costless and has a significant benefit while the latter has a very high cost. The only reason not to wear the mask given the low cost of the effort seems to be the disrespect of the health of others. It is really very similar to the wearing of a seatbelt - very low cost and increases your and other's safety tremendously (especially if everyone is involved in not wearing the mask as that reduces R0 tremendously and stops the pandemic in the tracks). Also, how is required wearing of a mask violating free speech any more than the modesty laws? The banning of hijabs etc is a much more direct violation of free speech but I usually see little objection to that, especially among the right wing (though this is only an issue in Europe).

LOL. How about ban cars? Why abortions? The ultimate political hijacking thwarted (I hope). Covid 19 has killed more than cars. Abortion has killed more than covid19. Keep in mind, my argument isn't just saving lives, it's also about what the government say we can (or cannot do) to our bodies. Why is it okay to use the slogan only when it benefits your political ideology? Are you seriously comparing the cost (human, not financial though that also probably applies) of having an abortion and not wearing a mask??? Further, the mask is probably going to save the health of many people at very little cost and inconvenience to the wearer. I am also curious about what you think of the modesty laws which are more stringent in the US than Europe? Why are those laws okay when it concerns your body and why haven't there been many protests encouraged by the president on that incredible violation of freedom compared to the simple requirement to wear a mask?

At least according to ycharts 2010 eps was around 13$ which would be a cagr of ~14%. Yes, that is probably right. What is interesting is that it is not really that different from Berkshire's 12.6% but you might be forgiven for thinking that there was a vast difference in Google's favor by the way it is generally talked about.

Wuhan to Shanghai is about 4h by most of the high speed trains. https://www.travelchinaguide.com/china-trains/shanghai-wuhan.htm . With the extra time taken for check in and security and the travel time to the airport, I am not so sure that the planes save too much time for intermediate distance journeys. But the high speed train tickets in China are also not too cheap.

China actually has by far the biggest high speed rail network in the world (bigger than Europe and Japan combined). I am not sure why you think they don't have more travel options than air. That doesn't detract from your point of the severe effect of covid 19.

Or until the Chinese real estate bubble pops! ;D (HK real estate prices only recently crossed their 1997 bubble peak and have been on a tear since)