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)

I think it is really important who the marginal buyer is. If the marginal buyer is from HK or China, they have the advantage of a currency that has appreciated significantly against the CAD in the last 3-4 years as well as much higher local prices to use as the benchmark. For them, Toronto probably still looks cheap on a relative basis. OTOH, if the marginal buyer is a Canadian (not just in respect of nationality or permanent residence but with respect to closest economic connections), the price is clearly out of whack. We might have an interesting transition if and when the marginal buyer's identity shifts for any reason. (For reference, a nominally 1000 sq ft condo in the outskirts of HK (real floor area by normal measures being about 800 sq ft) retails for about C$1.5 million at this point and a similar one in a more central area could easily be C$2.5 million or more. But HK has very limited land availability so it is not really a fair comparison.)

While I think it a very low probability event, it looks to me like there is a real possibility of a lot of problems for the Canadian economy arising simultaneously in the near future: namely the popping of the real estate bubble, oil continuing lower for longer and the implementation of a BAT south of the border. The outcome if all three hit at the same time is unlikely to be very pleasant. (I am personally long a bunch of Canadian dollars because the currency seems undervalued from a long term perspective but will probably get some cheap OOM puts to hedge the position until the danger passes.)

This question again? that it's being asked is proof positive the posters asking it listen exclusively to fake news, like CNN and MSNBC, although, to be fair, some American sites work it incorrectly to their advantage too. The six countries; Syria, Iraq, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan are not cooperative vetting their people, they have no civil authority. Hence, even they wouldn't know the validity of an emigrant. SA has a long established king and administration that takes things like birth certificates seriously. I thought Iraq is no longer on the list. Did they suddenly gain enlightenment on vetting or why where they removed from the list in such a short time?

Interestingly, the fund also lists 100 Berkshire class B shares among its holdings. Seriously, why bother holding such a miniscule position?

I think a lot of demand is coming from Asia where those prices don't look all that high. The prices I saw in the Twitter feed, while quite high by North American standards, are quite cheap compared to HK or Singapore (and many tier 1 Chinese cities are not far behind). Property taxes in major Asian cities are, however, low or even non-existent so the comparison is more complicated than that but it is entirely possible that the prices are just re-valuing to more reasonable levels.

I really can't believe that Trump thinks that Alex Jones is a serious news person! :o The guy is a ranting nutcase at best or an evil person exploiting a bunch of people who want to listen to one at worst. I have to seriously wonder about global security in the future if Trump actually believes or shares Alex Jones' worldview. :-\

Yep, time to put it to rest. Colin Powell called Benghazi "a stupid witch hunt". Condoleezza Rice said that she "completely agreed". Powell and Rice are former Republican Secretary of States. https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/colin-powell-called-benghazi-a-stupid-witch-hunt-and-condi-r How about Hillary selling 20% of Uranium to Russia? Is that also "a stupid witch hunt"? I know I'm gonna regret getting involved in this because i have a feeling that facts don't matter in this case. But statements like this make it sound like Hillary was there with a shovel loading uranium on a freigher bound for Russia. Please explain to me how Hillary sold US's Uranium to Russia given the facts: The sale in question refers to the sale of Uranium One - an uranium miner to a Russian company controlled by the government. Uranium One was(is) a Canadian uranium miner with operations on 4 continents. Some are in the US. The US operations are a small fraction of the total production of Uranium one. Uranium one does not have now nor did it have at the time a license to export Uranium out of United States. The US is not a large producer of Uranium and actually imports a lot of the stuff. Given that Uranium One had operations in the US the state department had to approve the merger. There is no evidence that Hillary was involved with the approval process however State did approve it while she was Secretary of State. In addition to State the sale was approved by 8 other US government agencies. In addition the sale was approved by a whole bunch of other governments around the world where the bulk of Uranium operations are including Canada and Australia and a shitload of those governments' agencies. So how did Hillary sell US uranium to Russia given the facts? Thanks for the detailed facts. I already knew that the US was not a major producer and Russia would have little problem getting uranium from many producers of nuclear fuel. Further, they don't even really need any more uranium or plutonium for their nuclear weapons - like the US, they have them vastly in excess of any reasonable requirements since the original number of missiles was calculated for what would be needed for a retaliatory strike after most of the initial ones were destroyed. If push came to shove, they could also just manufacture more nuclear fuel from breeder reactors.

Yes but you're voting for Clinton so therefore you're challenged :P. That's why you don't realize that what the country needs is the mother of all economic crises, blowing up financial systems all over the world, mass unemployment and massive destruction of wealth. Edit: physdude, you're incorrect about treasury futures. If scott gets his wish there won't be a counterparty in the world to pay him his gains. Ah yes, of course! The CME would almost definitely become defunct. Thinking about it a bit more, I suppose the only way to play it would be to become a survivalist but that doesn't seem like a fun way to live so a stash of fine whisky, pot, caviar etc. for a final long bash might be the way to go. ;)

WOW! I don't even know where to begin with this one. First you accuse Obama of bankrupting the country. Never mind the fact that when he took over the country was in a full blown financial crisis and now things don't look too bad. But then your cure to all that is to put Trump in charge in order to default on US bonds, which would be literally bankrupting the country. Nice thinking! It is clear to me that your reading comprehension skills are at a rudimentary level. I guess I should expect no less from a Hillary Clinton fan. I clearly said that Obama and Hillary are the cause of the national bankruptcy both here and on my YouTube review of Hillary's America. Donald Trump needs to be the man to clean up their big mess by navigating our own national bankruptcy, just as he has navigated so many bankruptcies of his own. No other candidate in this race knows 1/10th as much about financial restructurings. Not Hillary and certainly not for Gary ALLEPO Johnson. After seeing the youtube video in your sig, I am about 99% sure you are a troll. If you are not, it might be useful to know that hoarding silver would probably not be of much use if the US actually does default since the last time it arguably defaulted (on the Liberty bonds), it took the precaution of making gold ownership illegal so that no domestic gold market existed which enabled the legal short-changing of the bond holder's right to receive their money in gold. Also, domestic bankruptcies (even relatively large ones) are completely different beasts from large sovereign bankruptcies. I am not sure expertise in one will be particularly relevant to the other.

WOW! I don't even know where to begin with this one. First you accuse Obama of bankrupting the country. Never mind the fact that when he took over the country was in a full blown financial crisis and now things don't look too bad. But then your cure to all that is to put Trump in charge in order to default on US bonds, which would be literally bankrupting the country. Nice thinking! It is clear to me that your reading comprehension skills are at a rudimentary level. I guess I should expect no less from a Hillary Clinton fan. I clearly said that Obama and Hillary are the cause of the national bankruptcy both here and on my YouTube review of Hillary's America. Donald Trump needs to be the man to clean up their big mess by navigating our own national bankruptcy, just as he has navigated so many bankruptcies of his own. No other candidate in this race knows 1/10th as much about financial restructurings. Not Hillary and certainly not for Gary ALLEPO Johnson. Since the markets are heavily unanimous that the US is extremely far away from bankruptcy at this point (especially given a large percentage of the debt is just owed to itself and the Fed), engineering a default would cause an utter catastrophe to the world financial system which would make even the Great Depression look like a walk in the park. The US dollar would obviously lose its reserve currency status and would plummet. All US overseas FDI would probably be seized and banking systems the world over would collapse. I cannot possibly see how it would be sane to cause this just to avoid paying the relatively small proportion of the overall debt to China, Japan, Saudi Arabia etc. Just ordering the Fed to create additional dollars or minting some platinum coins would be way more preferable in every way. This might even end up creating an escape from the deflationary conditions that nobody seems to be able to escape from. If you really believe that the US will default, you will make a fortune by shorting Treasury futures. For the US, would be akin to cutting off its head rather than just its nose to spite its face but I think somebody will be sane enough to stop it.