compounding

Thanks for flagging this boilermaker, I look forward to reading this one.

I agree with this. I think part of the problem is that a lot of people think they know about the benefits of good sleep, so they discard a lot of the nuance and emphasis that someone like Walker tries to bring to the discussion. Also, it seems like it's hard to fully appreciate the effects from things that have small, regular costs but long-term, non-linear effects. Things like saving money, reading, diet/exercise and sleep all fall into this category in my view.

Attempting to reduce someone like Buffett or Jordan into a few clean causal relationships (that anyone can replicate) or a how-to-guide is so naive I almost find it offensive. This can only be the result of the thinking of someone who has no practical connection to reality, or perhaps someone who just does it because they like the subjects so much that they would rather spend their free time thinking about it instead of playing bridge or something of the sort.

I think that BRK is buying. But I would say that they are buying more other stocks than its own. In other words, I am willing to bet that repurchases are less than 50% of money spent on all purchases this quarter. I would put the over/under at 10-15%.

If you haven’t yet read Man’s Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl you can pick it up for $2 in the kindle version.

It's cheap because it's a cyclical sector that's capital intensive, high in fixed costs, super competitive, has a history of terrible capital allocation and a history of not earning their cost of capital over an economic cycle. They are not in control of the distribution of their own product and basically can't do anything to change that. They have mission critical suppliers that sometimes have pricing power over them. They have a partly unionized labor force and employees that get pissed off if they don't get large pension payments or if the largest owner also owns a football team that spends money to acquire a world star. The most profitable market has been at around what is supposed to be the limit for what is sustainable in terms of volume, for a few years now. The largest growth market is a country with a history of not always respecting the tenents of capitalism. Being global enterprises with production and sales all over the world, they are also sensitive to political action, which most of time is aimed creating a local advantage for the nations incumbents, but in the end might make everyone in the ecosystem worse off. Oh, and it's about to get disrupted by flying electric robotaxis. PS. The tone is a bit satirical but the points are mostly true PPS. I still like some of them as investments

If you guys are interested in a critique of Sapiens: http://www.newenglishreview.org/C_R_Hallpike/A_Response_to_Yuval_Harari%27s_%27Sapiens%3A_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind%27/

Nope, general intelligence is extremely easy to quantify. And furthermore, something doesn't have to be quantifiable to be determinable. Your follow-up questions are also easy to determine through empirical testing (it might not be easy for you to get that specific testing done though). That being said, I agree with the suggestion that there are probably more productive things to ponder. Your last statement is true, so were I more intelligent, I would not make this post ;) Presumably, everyone or almost every one reading this has an above average IQ. So, to a certain degree we have, shall I say, a dog in this fight. So after those two caveats, let's go on to your statement about general intelligence. Yes, you can give intelligence tests, and these tend to be the most robust of psychometric testing, but a) there are different cognitive abilities, b) the science is not really settled and c) more controversially I would argue that the .96 correlation between tests for the same individual over relatively short time frames begs the question. This does not even address the various aspects of cognitive abilities. Can either Buffett or Munger envision and rotate a particular hydrocarbon molecule in their heads? Who knows and it doesn't matter. (One of my college roommates could do this, to the considerable envy of the rest of us trying to keep up in organic chemistry.) I think you are wrong on the athleticism question as well. (Although, the comparison of IQ with athleticism is somewhat apt.) Jose Altuve and Lebron James are both tremendous athletes, (that would test out well) but they have more. Not to be woo-woo, but they both have the intangible psychological make up, which may be analogous to the rationality and temperament factors. Furthermore, you have to match the athlete's gifts to the right sport. (see Michael Jordan and baseball.) I would hazard a guess that Lebron would never be a top collegiate swimmer. If the testing were so easily accomplished (non-injury) draft bust would not happen! By all accounts, Walter Schloss was a dim bulb, yet was a successful investor. And I doubt, that even in Warren and Charlie's circle a 120 IQ would be a dim bulb! I don't really think this discussion is what the original post of this thread was about (this is magnitudes more interesting), so I think you can be excused for responding. :) If you read a little bit more carefully what I wrote, you would see that the main thing I objected to with my original response was that intelligence can't be quantified, or that athelticism can't be quantified, which it clearly can. You can argue that there isn't a quantification method that perfectly encapsulates cognitive ability, but that wasn't what I argued for in the first place. And I think the evidence for IQ testing is pretty darn strong. I think the scientific consensus on intelligence disagrees with b) and c), and perhaps a) although that is very vaguely stated. If you are talking about Emotional Intelligence or something like that, you are quite frankly not in agreement with the scientific consensus, but if you are referring to verbal intelligence as being different from e.g. mental rotation, I would agree with you. I'm not really sure I understand what you mean by using it as a counter argument vis-a-vis IQ testing though, because IQ testing includes a broad variety of cognitive abilities. I could provide you with links supporting these claims, but it should be easy enough for you to find it yourself if you are genuinely interested. Again, you are putting up a straw man with regards to the athleticism argument. I never said psychological make-up wasn't important for elite athletes (it clearly is), I argued with the claim that athleticism isn't quantifiable. I agree with you that different sports have different requirements, although I would disagree with MJ being a case in point. I mean, the guy played professional baseball with basically no real training since childhood, so I would even say that's a pretty good counter argument to your point. I also personally think you underestimate how physically and mentally gifted LeBron James is in terms of being an elite athlete (an argument I never though I would be able to honestly argue). Although I can't prove it, I think it's pretty likely that he could have been a professional athlete in a bunch of sports different from basketball, had he dedicated his life to another sport. If you want a parallel to intelligence and Buffett, I think he probably could have been successful in any given intelletual field, with sufficient dedication (a point Munger has made as well, by the way). It's getting a bit tiresome making the same point over and over again, but your argument about the draft being easy if athleticism is easily quantifiable is also quite obviously not true. You even made the argument yourself that raw physical ability isn't the only thing that determines success in sport, so why would quantification settle the issue of draft prospects?

Yes, it's called IQ testing and it's one of the best/most robust findings in the science of psychology. You realise, of course, that basically every elite sports team in the world, in every possible sport, test their players regularly (in ways that are quantifiable) to measure their progress and/or take stock of possible recruits? From what I gather most testing is also highly standardised and not even attempted to be kept secret (i.e. people pretty much agree on what makes players athletic). Why do you think they do that? Their idea of sunday afternoon fun? I must say it's a bit surprising to me that you don't think valuation is an exercise that lends itself to quantification. To each his own, I guess.

Nope, general intelligence is extremely easy to quantify. And furthermore, something doesn't have to be quantifiable to be determinable. Your follow-up questions are also easy to determine through empirical testing (it might not be easy for you to get that specific testing done though). That being said, I agree with the suggestion that there are probably more productive things to ponder.

You are spot on! I was thinking that this would be helpful for others, and was assuming that others meant everybody. In my defense, as to how it was written, the assignment was to complete a 500 to 700 word essay using 3 adjectives to describe ourselves (I may very well be positively delusional.) We were expected to use the SEE-R model, and to write with correct punctuation (once again, delusional.) BTW, you are very good at this, and I will read the Wiki article this afternoon (after classes, it's music day!) --- I must; however, disagree that most of the people on COBF are disagreeable. I find that the majority of individuals here are amenable to changing their thinking when evidence is presented (or at least, they're willing to disagree in a cordial fashion,) and the discussions are, for the most part, agreeable. (I think that I may be addicted to commas?) Unreasonableness usually comes, consistently, from the same corners... I don't really think you need to defend anything in the essay, and I don't think you are delusional, it's just that the effect it will have on improving others may be limited. It still can be a very beneficial exercise for you. Regarding being positively delusional I think it is natural to choose aspects of your personality that will be regarded as more positive, when asked to write something like this. Also, my experience is that university in general is biased towards preparing students to be able to signal their virtues rather than more soul-searching introspectiveness, even though the latter might be more useful for developing character. My point about COBF being generally disagreeable isn't directly tied to the ability of people to change their minds, I think disagreeable people can change their minds too. My case would rather be made by pointing to things like negotiating skills, the contrarian nature a lot of investors strive for/naturally have, the tendency to be skeptical/cynical of things, and just the fact that investing as a discipline just isn't much of a team sport. With that said, I would still expect to find a bunch of agreeable people here, just that if you compare the COBF population to a random sampling, the COBF would on average be more disagreeable than the random group, in my estimation. The distribution curve is slightly more disagreeable, if you will. Thanks for the compliment, I'm glad you got something out of my post.

Don't know if you wanted feedback on the essay since you posted it with the purpose of being useful to others, but I'll take a shot anyway. Feel free to ignore my post if you are not interested. A great deal of what you are describing in the essay are your specific personality traits, and practical psychological tricks you use to be a productive/useful person. I commend you for thinking about these things and trying to increase your utility to other people, but to assume that it has instant value to other people with different personalities I think is a bit ... naive. People that are introverted, high in neuroticism or low in agreeableness (basically everyone on this forum) won't find your practical advice, or general philosophy very useful, since it is created to solve problems specific to your personality, which seems to be on the opposite side of the spectrum. You will understand why these things differ if you learn more about personality psychology. The wikipedia entry about the Big Five aspect scale serves as a decent intro if you want to learn more about personality traits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

Welcome to the CBDC - the real question is whether e-Krona will also have interest bearing possibilities (I-CBDC). We would suggest that the hangups are how interest on the token would affect the payments and banking system, how taxation on the token interest earned by non Swedes will be processed, and whether the token can be issued with interest switched 'off'. ie; At a rate of 0% but with staged integration. It isn't choice of technology, it's can it be integrated with what already exists - and how. SD I don't have the slightest idea as to what the CBDC is, or whether it is something to be desired to be welcomed to or not, but hey thanks anyway. I also haven't argued that the choice of technology is the most significant question, so take it easy with your straw manning. I objected to the fact that Sweden is looking to specifically introduce a cryptocurrency, which is the title of this thread, and also the title in the linked article.

"The choice of technology needs to be investigated Which technology would work best for an e-krona is a matter for further investigation by the project. Both new and tried-and-tested technology could be used, and there could be cooperation with both public authorities and private actors." The Riksbank doesn't seem decided on using cryptography as the underlying technology, as far as I can tell.

Ferrari is where the real compounders are to be found. Ferrari's and certain other luxury products are not representative of the general pricing behaviour for cars though, so your talk about cars being declining assets is still relevant from a personal finance perspective. And no, it has absolutely nothing to do with a supposed transition to electric vehicles, it has to do with supply and demand for scarce items.