yadayada

Maybe you can explain this too. If I shoot an electron through a vaccuum of 10 metres wide start to end. If It does not interact with light or other particles it behaves like a wave right? It is no where and everywhere at once at the same time. Basicly all that quantum magic. Let's say you observe that vaccuum 8 metres after the starting point with a lightbeam of short wave length. There is a certain probability you will see it after x amount of time right? But in the quantum world, a particle can go from point a to b faster then the speed of light right? It has a certain chance of showing up at different times 8 metres after the starting point? By far the largest chance is exactly the time of light speed it takes to get there. But there is also a small chance you will see it before light could possibly get there right? Basicly the probability distribution states that right after shooting into the vacuum it can show up anywhere in that vacuum if observed at that point. The probability is low, but it can happen? Is this correct? I was under the impression that classical physics rules of relativity and newton can be broken in the quantum world like this. Or is this wrong? Same thing for quantum tunneling. If there is an obstacle in the middle of that 10 metre vaccuum, it still has a probability of showing up after the obstacle, basicly teleporting itself through that obstacle? UNLESS ofcourse it is observed before the obstacle. In that case it behaves like a particle and has a zero chance of going through the obstacle. Hope I phrased the question clear enough TIA :) Edit: added a picture. The wave thing might not be drawn correctly or the correct shape, but whatever. Is the statement right in that picture?

Wouldn't they need a lot more then 51% to do that? Seems like something like that would just attract a lot of negative unnecesairy attention in this already negative enviroment.

I thought the properties are not in place before they are observed? Isn't that true randomness? What they will be before you observe them is truly random, and not determined right? And determined for both, the moment you interact with one? I thought true randomness is one of the things that is so strange about quantum mechanics as this is not observable in the macroscopic world. And why can i actually do this at home? I just tried it, and I got the wave pattern? Isnt there suposed to be loads of interference?

I understand that it cannot be used for communication. But technically information is being transmitted instantly over extremly large distances right? Because even though we cannot use it to communicate, if one thing causes another thing to change, that is an information transfer in the world of physics right?

Quantum entanglement basicly means that information is transmitted faster then light right? If 2 entangled particles exist like a lightyear away from eachother in a superposition, and one is observed, you can predict in what state the other particle collapsed as well right? The outcome for both is truly random, but when just one is observed, the superposition of the other one that is very far away instantly collapses too? I still struggle to understand how they can make computers out of this.

Let's go through the timeline. First quantum computer is built. Scientists kind of realize how bad it would be if the wrong people get their hands on it. So now they have to convince everyone to install new quantum security? But ofcourse humans being humans, a good part of security will not be upgraded untill some bad stuff actually happened. Most people will not have a clue how all of it works. It could cause serious panic regarding technology? A lot of ignorant people not really knowing what is going on, and just to be safe, companies installing typewriters in their offices. I can see how people can become very suspicious of technology if that happens. Aren't the russians doing that? They thought, screw all that computer security, we will just go back to typewriters. Might be good to buy companies that sell cabinets and typewriters :) .

I have read up on quantum mechanics and especially quantum computing looks really interesting. Not going to claim I even understand half that stuff, but it seems a breakthrough in this field seems somewhat likely in the next 1-2 decades. And if that happens no encryption will be safe. You could crack the best security from the outside in a matter of days? Any more knowledgable people here on this subject? Or will this not be a big deal. In case you are interested, here is some good reading material: http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/index.html (pretty basic and explains it quite well) http://feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_toc.html (supplementary and also interesting to read) These video's are also interesting: https://www.youtube.com/user/phdcomics/videos This one explains quantum entanglement http://muonray.blogspot.ie/2014/09/overview-of-quantum-entanglement.html Mindblowing stuff , recommended reading. You will see the world quite differently after reading that :) . allthough you will have to break your brain a bit . Recent break through: http://scitechdaily.com/physicists-demonstrate-control-two-qubit-system/

It is interesting that if you look at Iran and egypt in the middle of the 20th century, it looked like it was very friendly towards the west. What are the most important factors that islam got so extreme in a lot of those parts of the world? You see girls without headscarfs in Iran in old black and white pictures. You could take a van and travel to like afghanistan in the 60's right? Is it the west, israel conflict and then a combo of some evil puppet masters with a lot of oil money wanting to take out some low cost competition? Btw this is a unrelated interesting piece on oil price manipulation http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324682204578517064053636892

Uusually REIT investors care a lot about dividend. You could argue wether the REIT has no value then. I compare some of those net nets to a safe with money in it, except you cannot access it unless the owner feels like opening it with their key. Sure there is value, but only in theory. Even Graham looked for catalysts. I think you gotta look at incentives here. If there is large inside ownership then it is likely something will happen in the near future. Unless they are paying themselves a large salary. Usually if the discount to assets is very large though, if even some positive news comes a long, it can rerate significantly.

In my imagination they can jump.

A. Gary Shilling believes that in 4 years we'll be back to our normal long-term rate of GDP growth. He is aware of all the issues you've raised. So even though they sound convincing, there are other things to think about as well that are also important. For one thing, I doubt the debt has to be repaid as you suggest (one form of repayment is to issue more debt as the old bonds mature). You just need to grow it slower than GDP and you're golden long-term. So you can run deficits in perpetuity and yet still be deleveraging at the same time. There was also a boatload of malinvestment over those 19 years. Did that contribute to the slow growth (and relatively poor market returns) that we've seen? I imagine it didn't help. Could the next 19 years not have this drag? Shiller is certainly smarter than me so I would probably go with his analysis if I were you. I'm just too skeptical to get there myself. Its hard for me to reconcile that there hasn't been massive malinvestments over the last 5 years and that it wont continue until a market correcting event. Its hard for me to believe that politicians will suddenly get fiscally responsible after decades of overspending or that the American voter will actually demand real change. I think we'll get back to a good place eventually....after exhausting every alternative and being forced to by things events outside of our control (debt crisis, inflation threat, two decades of 0 growth, war, etc). It's a very cynical view, but it has thus far been supported year after year of continuous massive deficits, constant manipulations of market participants (malinvestment), constant war, and politicians who regularly prove how inept they are on both sides of the aisle, etc. Yeah i think the analogy of the lobster that is slowly boiled and does not jump out, vs the lobster that is thrown in boiling water and jumps out, is in order here. I think people blame corporations and banks too much. Few point fingers at politicians. They usually are the good guys because they want a home for everyone! And they dole out free stuff. On the one hand corporations are evil, and on the other hand people are marvelling about the wonders of modern technology and how amazing that all is. Which ironically is a direct consequence of capitalism. Even smart guys like jon stewart don't really understand economics that well. When it all goes to shit, everyone probably points there fingers at bankers and evil corporations dodging taxes again. And the whole thing starts all over again after that. It is almost as if economics should be taught in a simple, entertaining and easy to understand manner in high school...

I heard buffett is into gold, he likes to fondle it.

Don't you think long term they will be better off? They are kind of leaning on oil now. Kind of the same how poor countries generally do better if all help from outside stops. They collapse and are forced to deal with it, and the corrupt regime is usually removed. Just seems oil is causing so much unrest and conflict over the long run in these places.

ironically , middle east will be better off if the world will not use much oil anymore. Or at least the general population.

Didn't they say the same thing about gold? Gold is an entirely different animal. Just about all the gold that has ever been mined is still around and relatively little of it is mined every year. The only thing that has a large effect on its price is the demand (do people want to hold it or sell it off). Oil on the other hand is quickly burned and then it is gone. Therefore the cost of production quickly effects how much is available on the market and therefor on its price. That, and the highest cost producers set the price basicly. So all you have to look at is daily demand (i think about 90-100m barrels of oil?) and look at the costs of all the players. Let's say it is 90m barrels. If oil will be below 60$, then you need the highest cost player to still have costs below 60$, or probably around 40-50$. And that is not the case. If even a few million barrels cannot be filled at low prices, then the price spikes up. The Saudi's have costs that low (around 35$ I think). Us fracking BE costs are between 55-100$. With the majority at 70$. It could be that oil will be around 80$ for a sustained period, but not much below that. Unless there is some break through in bringing costs down of drilling, or they find some massive low cost oil field somewhere. And every year a little bit of those low cost guys run out of oil. So that can then be more and more filled up by higher cost production. That is also the aim of OPEC , to keep production at a level where at least some high cost oil is required to be online to full fill demand. The Saudi's flood the market if others do not get in line. Some say that Saudi arabia is some sort of puppet master in the middle east, making sure there is a lot of unrest to keep their own extremist part of the population distracted and to bring competing low cost oil production offline. And capex have increased 200% or so in the last decade, and production only 10-15% or so . This is cost curve currently: http://www.rystadenergy.com/Images/News/BreakevenPrices_Image1.JPG Not sure how accurate. I think costs for oil sands are actually lower. But if you track this over the years, you see that OPEC is getting smaller, and that costs for everyone go up, while demand rises steadily every year. http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2014/11/20141107_shale.jpg

well i phrased that badly, I should say unlikely :). I mean just look at the cost curve. Costs have been going up and not down. And they will only go up in the future. A lot of production will start losing money below 60-70$.

No, not possible. Much below todays prices and a lot of supply comes of the market. And prices to get the stuff out of the ground are going up, not down.

You think he leaked it to show off how much he can piss away on a piece of 'art'? GET OUT OF HERE NO WAY

Now THAT is a nice IRR Also this is rather strange: If Wynn puts his elbow through it, it goes up in value apparantly. :D

Being this board essentially about stock market investments, I meant I have doubled my capital for the first time since the stock market investments of my firm truly started to matter. How I went from 25k Euros to 1 million Euro is another story, one mostly of very good luck (and perhaps of a bit of hard work and dedication on my part too…). Cheers, Gio Aaah quit that modesty crap man :d you kicked ass and made a cool million!

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/09/01/chinas-productivity-problem-drags-on-growth/

Isn't RT funded by putin?

I would be very careful putting private and public debt together. There is a huge difference between the two.

I think a lot of industries have moved towards oligopoly duopoly structures? So then profit margins will be higher.

THat guy gottfried is interesting. Is there a way to publicly track his holdings?