Peregrine

+1. Trump himself might be just a middling racist and xenophobe on the par of water-cooler brogrammers and jocks who just don't think it racist or misogynist to call someone n word or ho, bitch, etc. The problem is that he's running a campaign based on raising and supporting that hatred. I don't know if the fact that this strategy is working says a lot about our society or if it just shows how bad his competition is, both in the primary and now in the general election? Whatever it means it isn't good. The USA is extremely pluralistic. A place like Texas would seem almost alien to those living in New York - and vice versa. In a largely heterogeneous country, differences and divisions are unavoidable. Some group or another will feel marginalized and it just takes one guy willing to exploit these real or perceived slights to build an unspoken feeling of animosity into widespread anger, resentment and hatred. Mob mentality is real and a strong facet of human nature. As far as the latter? I'm not even sure if Trump supporters even know why they hate Hillary so much other than the fact that she represents the opposition.

This is where you and I differ. I don't believe that for an instant. What drives Trump to say the things that he does? Is it really beliefs in policies and principles that will help his country? Time has shown again and again that he has no policies or beliefs or anything grounded in principle - in fact, he has regularly shifted from one to another. No, he does what he does to pander to the biggest group of people that he believes will support him. I don't even believe he's as racist as many think he is; he is, however, appealing to the worst instincts of his base of supporters, instincts that while largely latent have been brewing for some time.

No, I'm not about to assume that you are insane or stupid. No one is infallible and for people who have been in the political arena for decades, like a Bush or a Clinton, their choices and mistakes are magnified. I am not trying to absolve Clinton for the mistakes she made. You can't. She has made some big mistakes that above all has called into question her integrity. That has already happened and it will probably forever have a mark on her career. However, I do not think anyone reasonable can call into question her competence and perhaps most importantly her desire to help her country. Many say that she's just power-hungry but she has been involved in public service for her entire public life and for much of the last 30 years has endured a microscopic lens on her and strong criticism from both the left and the right and ever-increasing amounts of slander and negative propaganda from the extreme right. I don't know, but I don't find that trade-off particularly envious if you're only out for public prominence and stature. Put it this way: when forced to choose between 1) winning the presidency and 2) the country and its citizens, do you really think she'll choose the former over the latter? For the other candidate, I have a hard time seeing him choosing the latter.

I don't understand why you think Clinton is a poor candidate. Do you?

The issue is sane vs. insane. I'd put it more as evil vs. insane. Why is she evil?

It's interesting that many repeat that almost verbatim. But I'm curious - what exactly has she done to spite so many?

So you would basically advise your candidate to tweet a 13 year old article written when the economic situation was much different than it is today. An article which ascribes the cause of the trade deficit to a wholly different issue as your candidate and which prescribes a completely different and opposite solution as your candidate. Yep. That sounds about right for Trump. Did you even read the article? The problem with trade deficit is transfer of wealth to other countries. That nature of trade deficit does not change with time. It is like the law of gravity is same in year 2000 and year 2016. The solution advocated by Buffett is tariff, same as Trump. To quote the article "To see what would happen to imports, let's look at a car now entering the U.S. at a cost to the importer of $20,000. Under the new plan and the assumption that ICs sell for 10%, the importer's cost would rise to $22,000". It's not a blanket across-the-board tariff that Trump is endorsing, which can have very distortive effects. The credits that Buffett references will have a market-clearing type characteristics that will continually adjust the level of the "tariff" in accordance with market supply and demand. That is a very crucial difference. Tariffs are not just black or white or good or bad, it's the use of it that matters. Either way, Buffett concedes that tariffs, regardless of the magnitude, will raise costs for American consumers. Trump just paints them as creating "millions and millions' of new jobs and getting back at the crooked Chinese. Also, that article was written over 13 years ago and the circumstances of the US economy currently are very, very different.

Hillary is rational and this significant leftist movement in her party (or perhaps more accurately, the country in general) has basically left her no choice but to give credence to those voices. At heart, however, she is a centrist. Obama was thought to be the same prior to him becoming president, but I do not see this drastic shift to a socialist economy that so many on the right have decried. Socialism is really anathema to American culture.

+1 on this. It is impossible for a politician, ESPECIALLY one who has been in office as long as her, to not be dishonest or disingenuous to some degree. This is the nature of politics. For all the talk about Sanders and his integrity during this election season, he has also stretched the truth and pandered to public prejudices. Hillary has proven herself to be a very rational thinker and a fighter and she has plenty of experience. Various groups in the Right have pummeled her for decades to the point that the perception of her has deviated massively from the reality.

Trump is an utterly despicable person. I find it appalling that some support him on "pragmatic" reasons.

I think it's wrong to assume that a democracy is de facto the best possible system for any country. There are different circumstances that exists in different countries. China's autocratic system has brought about the fastest pace of economic growth for any civilization in history. This is even more impressive when you consider of the size of the country. It is a miracle that a country of that size went from subsistence agriculture to where it is today over the span of 40 years.

Donald Trump is not the first demagogue in human history. In fact, history has shown that humans (particularly as a group) are readily susceptible to manipulation.

Companies raise prices for lots of reasons. Economists that are hired by BODs to come in and consult on setting prices. On everything from Ipods to cereal, Drugs to toothpaste. The list goes on and on. There's a lot of though put into it. It's legal for a firm to extract as much price as it's legally possible. Does that make it moral? Hardly. This is especially the case in a monopoly. While pricing discretion in monopolies like utilities are restrained by regulators, it is far less so in pharmaceutical companies with patented drugs that have virtually 0 viable substitutes. Here, you have a wide range of different choices. What Pearson et al likely missed is that egregious price hikes, while allowed under contemporary law, may not be so in the future.

It's quite apparent to anyone that has watched him over the years that he has always been about making money first and morality second. Him trying to rationalize Valeant's aggressive price increases by going after Coke is amusing and unsurprising.

Great interview! I've heard that Schroeder and Buffett aren't as close as they once were. Any details?

Thank you!

I think a lot of people start getting into stocks not because they feel they're undervalued but because they don't want to miss the bull cycle. But for many people who think this way they generally end up missing the action anyway.

Relative to previous levels of the market.

With 5 being most attractive, do you mean 4?

Yes, thanks for pointing out the oversight. 1 means least attractive.

Hey everyone. I didn't see a poll for something like this on the front page, so decided to start one myself. Would like to get a feel for what this subset of the value community thinks! Edit: 1 means least attractive. Attractiveness in comparison to that of previous levels of the stock market.

I find that it has been getting more difficult managing smaller sums. I can only imagine what it would be like to manage billions.

Clearly the effectiveness and reliability of the computer system matters a great deal in answering that question for any specific situation. But given a computer system with enough quality and reliability, there's very little I wouldn't let it do. I'd go so far as to say I'd let a computer-operated machine perform surgery on me. And I don't see any reason why a computer system can't be more safe and effective than a human driver. That's interesting. I think that most people, knowing that any small mistake while driving can mean life or death, would choose to have their fates placed in their own hands rather than a computer's even if in theory the possibility of life-threatening accidents is lower in the latter case. I agree with you that the efficacy of such technology will play a major factor in driving behaviour.

A permanent loss of capital occurs when an investor's aggregate after-tax receipts from an investment-- including those he receives upon sale-- give him less purchasing power than what he had to begin with. It's easy to measure and isn't subjective. Hmm, I apologize for not phrasing that correctly. I meant that the risk of permanent loss of capital is subjective and difficult to define.

It's true that stock prices frequently go up and down, making seeming gains and losses transitory. By my understanding, permanent loss of capital arises when you make a mistake, i.e. it's the risk of making a mistake and these mistakes generally happen when you get yourself into something that you don't truly understand. It's subjective and not something that can be measured as easily as beta.