james22

4 (Quickly provide well being and efficient administration...)?? They can't provide that at home.

Thing is though, in so many fields the most commonly held information/accepted wisdom is wrong. This'll only perpetuate that.

An excuse to share a story: Back in the mid-90s, your humble correspondent was an aircrew member, assigned to an Air Force battle management squadron. We supported the NATO/U.N. mission in Bosnia from its earliest days; our job was to coordinate air support for peacekeeping troops on the ground. More often that not, it was an exercise in frustration. Local bad guys--Serb, Croats and Muslims--would sometimes open fire at allied troops on the ground. That would bring a call for air support. Here's how the system was supposed to work: the Tactical Air Control Party (TACP) taking fire--or attached to the unit under attack--would radio a request for close air support to our aircraft. We would relay the request to NATO's Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) in Vicenza, Italy, which was in charge of the air campaign. At that point, the CAOC was supposed to approve the request, and we would direct available air assets to support the unit under fire. But remember, the U.N. had its thumb in the Bosnia mission as well. Beyond the CAOC, the support request was then routed to the senior United Nations official in Zagreb, Croatia, then on to New York. Once approved by some grandee at U.N. Headquarters, the request made its way back down the chain, through Zagreb, back to the CAOC, on to the airborne C2 element and finally to the A-10s, F-16s, Harriers, F/A-18s or whatever asset was assigned to support the folks on the ground. Originally, the U.N. approval was (supposedly) required for only the first CAS request; after that, the decision would be made within the military chain. Nice theory, but in practice, the U.N. didn't want to relinquish control. So, for much of the Bosnia mission, any request for air support still had to go through the United Nations chain. On multiple occasions, fighters orbited overhead for more than 30 minutes while the request for CAS was considered. By the time approval was granted, the shooting had stopped and the local thugs faded back into the countryside. One day, the bureaucratic nightmare became too much. The sector patrolled by troops from Denmark was around Tuzla, the same place where Hillary Clinton claimed she came under sniper fire. But unlike Mrs. Clinton, the Danes had been taking actual fire from the Serbs and were determined to neutralize the threat, once and for all. On October 25, 1994, the Danish TACP reported that elements of the Nordic battalion was moving into action against the Serbs. One of our controllers asked if they were requesting CAS. No, the Danes told us. We'll handle it. That got a lot of attention in the back end of our airplane. The Danish TACP couldn't clear NATO fighters onto the Serb position without approval up the chain. So, how did the plan to deal with the Serbs? We got the answer in short order. Our crew capsule was equipped with a crude e-mail system that allowed us to communicate without using the intercom. 'They're bring up tanks" the controller team told us. In the early days of the Bosnia mission, Denmark was the only country that sent tanks as part of its military contingent. Not light tanks or armored cars, but Leopard I main battle tanks. As I recall, the Danes sent three Leopards to deal with the problem. Along the way, they were engaged by a Russian-built T-55, operated by Serb forces. It was quickly knocked out, along with a recoilless rifle. Once in position, the Danish tanks pounded the Serbian position. Officially, the Leopards fired a total of 21 rounds from their 105 mm main guns. But a few years later, I heard a different version of events during a presentation from U.S. Navy Admiral Leighton "Snuffy" Smith, who was commander of NATO forces in Bosnia in 1994. According to Admiral Smith, one of the Leopards, commanded by a female tanker, expended all of its 105mm ammunition against the Serb position. Smith later met with the tank crews and asked the young officer why she had fired so many rounds during that engagement. "Because," she said, "that was all I had." http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-lawyers-war.html

Yup. Even though retired, I see no reason to hold bonds today.

Equally important, lifting (voluntary hardship) teaches something about life.

Ah.

Sure. That's the Dow 36,000 argument: once stocks are recognized as less risky than now thought, they'll correct upward.

Well, yeah. Not preached to.

Yeah:

Disney?? They aren't far from losing half the country.

To expand, I'm really guessing the next couple years looks something like the 2000-2002 Value/Sector rotation. So SV, Energy, Financials, Industrials, and International rather than US LG/Tech. Have a bet on Gold too.

AAPL @ $125.07?

The war in Ukraine seems permanent. Neither side appears capable of destroying the opposing force or articulating what it would take to reach a peace agreement. The Russians are speaking to Belarus, India and anyone else they might find, but no one can help enough on the battlefield or in the munitions factory to turn the tide. The Ukrainians are speaking to the United States, NATO and anyone else who will listen so that they will continue to receive weapons – perhaps even some new ones. But Ukraine hasn’t broken Russia yet, concerned as it is with preventing the collapse of the country, and doing so may prove difficult. On the battlefield, there is movement on both sides, but movement doesn’t carry with it the taste of victory. When, then, do wars end if the leadership will not concede? History shows there are several answers to that question. 1. A war ends when one side lacks the material to continue. Germany’s campaign in World War II ended when it was unable to produce and field the weapons needed to fend off the Allied powers. 2. A war ends when one side’s morale is exhausted – when soldiers and civilians are simply unwilling to bear the burden of war, even if victory is possible. This was the case for the United States in the Vietnam War. 3. A war ends when there is no hope of a radical increase in military power, and when foreign intervention is impossible. In WWII, Britain persevered knowing it could not defeat Germany but reasonably expecting an American intervention. 4. A war ends when the consequences of defeat seem tolerable to civilians. In World War II, the Italian public saw Allied occupation as a preferable alternative. (Conversely, nations will continue to fight when the cost of defeat is catastrophic.) ... But so long as Ukraine fears a defeat by Russia, capitulation is practically impossible. The same cannot be said of Russia. https://geopoliticalfutures.com/the-state-of-play-in-ukraine/

1/2/3/4 plates by end of the year (at 180lbs, age 60).

Small Value

Looking for a fragging.

Essentially even.

Maybe I misunderstood your argument. I'm just thinking plain vanilla 3rd grade division and multiplication > Ivy League geniuses.

Probably.

Yes. Edited to clarify: What do I know? I'd be happy if Buffett did so because he thought her the right person for the job. I know little other than he seems to respect her (and he'd know if he took advantage of her in their dealings) and that even Icahn believes she is 'as good at operations as horrible at M&A' (high praise).

So why energy? The prospects for energy changed radically with the events in the early days of 2022. Buffett had written in his 2020 Shareholder Letter about the difficulties in building a grid to deliver wind and solar energy from remote sources to the cities where most energy was needed. Back in 2006 Berkshire Hathaway Energy had been among the first to undertake this task of building a grid, deferring all cash return until 2030 when the $18 billion project was scheduled to be completed. In short, Buffett understood the energy problem from both perspectives and knew that the solution was not going to achieved nearly as quickly as enthusiastic activists had assumed. The withdrawal of Russian energy in the course of the war in Ukraine put this into focus for the rest of the world. Their estimates for transition to green energy had been far too optimistic. ... What Buffett saw was the simple fact that OXY and CVX were gushing cash flow. It was clearly enough for OXY to clean up its balance sheet and begin with small dividends and buybacks which could be sustained even if oil and gas prices declined. Moreover, CVX and OXY were integrated energy companies which would be supported by downstream profits from refining and marketing. The one major risk was political but it was well known. OXY and CVX didn't have to operate brilliantly to work out as investments. They just had to perform fairly well under fairly decent conditions for their returns to continue rising. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4566832-berkshire-hathaway-buffett-year-2022-setting-things-order I'd like to see BRK to buy OXY (and the 8% outstanding BHE) and put Hollub in charge.

2021: No miners in Texas, record cold, grid destabilized, 246 recorded deaths 2022: Miners in Texas, record cold, grid stabilized, no recorded deaths This is the headline everyone should be shouting: #Bitcoin miners stabilize the grid and save lives. https://notthebee.com/article/this-mad-lad-claims-bitcoin-farming-saved-the-texas-energy-grid-during-this-latest-cold-snap-and-i-thought-he-was-crazy-but-now-i-believe-him-

A better mousetrap only matters to those with mice.