randomep

Well, there was that Ukrainian revolution that happened literally just this year in the middle of Europe. Kievans are not Africans or Burmese, their quality of life was much higher. Same with Arab Spring -- these countries were not desperately poor by any means. Libyans were relatively well off actually, and had quite a lot of government subsidies for day-today life. I don't think it's the matter of absolute poverty, it's the matter of relative inequity that people observe around them, and media plays a big role in this. Right now US media is full of dumb entertainment and silly news, I think that also plays a role in placating population. And it's not like the US doesn't have any history of such unrest. Kent State or L.A. come to mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings And the guy did address this in his article briefly: Many of us think we’re special because “this is America.” We think we’re immune to the same forces that started the Arab Spring—or the French and Russian revolutions, for that matter. I know you fellow .01%ers tend to dismiss this kind of argument; I’ve had many of you tell me to my face I’m completely bonkers. And yes, I know there are many of you who are convinced that because you saw a poor kid with an iPhone that one time, inequality is a fiction. Here’s what I say to you: You’re living in a dream world. What everyone wants to believe is that when things reach a tipping point and go from being merely crappy for the masses to dangerous and socially destabilizing, that we’re somehow going to know about that shift ahead of time. Any student of history knows that’s not the way it happens. Revolutions, like bankruptcies, come gradually, and then suddenly. One day, somebody sets himself on fire, then thousands of people are in the streets, and before you know it, the country is burning. Ukraine is making progress over the past. 40 years ago they were a communist state, now they are a (pseudo democratic) country, the protest was a political one. What they were protesting was very different from the income inequalify of the article in question. I argue that in general most countries are making progress towards betterment of its people including US. The article is saying that the US is going backwards in terms of social progress. Who knows maybe the next Arab spring is in Russia. Kent state to me was the culmination of protests over a bad war. The war was sending 100 americans home in body bags per typical week. Today I can imagine we'd have kent state if 100 american's came home in body bags in a week. But Iraq was nothing close to that. Today soldiers are all going volutnarily, and the government spends $1Mil per soldier per year! So the country is saying the lives of soldiers are worth more today than back then. Yes I know I know you think I am in a dream world..... I guess I just agree with Warren Buffett on this point. cheers

Here's a good essay on the topic: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014_full.html?print#.U63OsrG7Mwc I am sorry, it is an essay, the person can write well but I don't think the article is good. It makes for sensationalist headlines, especially the word pitchforks. I think we have riots and pitchforks when a huge segment of society is disenfranchised or have no hope (I am thinking blacks in the 50s and 60s). Or if blacks feel Rodney King wasn't given justice. I cannot imagine people rioting because their family has one car instead of 3. the great issues of our world in the next 20yrs will likely be a lot of things we cannot foresee, in the 70's virtually no one could forsee the fall of communism, no one could foresee 9/11 the article reminds me of Kyle Bass, saying (with obvious facts) that Japan will be torn apart, well the only thing torn apart is his Japan trade.... I bet against Kyle Bass (holding Japanese stocks) and I would bet if I could against the article thesis

couldn't it simply be insiders buying and selling to their friends to manipulate the price? I was making a joke. Regardless if it was a joke or not, I asked a question: is it likely that it is insiders that are on one side or the other of all these trades? I was looking for a Y/N answer..... Just to appease you I'll answer a definite, maybe. Thank you I feel much better.

couldn't it simply be insiders buying and selling to their friends to manipulate the price? I was making a joke. Regardless if it was a joke or not, I asked a question: is it likely that it is insiders that are on one side or the other of all these trades? I was looking for a Y/N answer.....

couldn't it simply be insiders buying and selling to their friends to manipulate the price?

LOVE the business description: "The Company intends to develop a social network business." I had a shitty day till I read this, thanks

Packer, can you elaborate? What do you mean "abitraged away most of teh excess return of the largest 300 stocks"

Thanks I just printed it out and will read it over lunch.

I don't really like starbucks coffee either but their service is great. Their bathroom is clean so you can count on them when you need to go on long trips. And they have consistent WIFI. When I go to the supermarket though, I always buy Peetes, never starbucks beans.

haha, you know I am an engineer and I am starting to do that. I keep electronic records of all my doctor visits..... thanks for the feedback that it is useful....

I am a hard core engineer also. Now an interesting question: do you ever use your software skills for investing: like - run monte carlo simulations - using programming or matlab/octave - use scripts to grab financial statement data off the web etc

Thanks, I saw their charts, that is a sickening ride, more than a decade's outperformance gone in the financial crisis, he was down 60% in 2008-2009! I commend him sticking with it.

Because it's a cash cow and I had secured the most valuable asset of the company in my agreement at a fraction of its cost. The cash was not used properly and they did not have board members (or at least enough) that were business operators. But the business makes money hand over foot with economics that should keep it that way for a long time! Cheers! Wait, the company makes money hand over fist and you don't think the money should pay for the CEO's yacht club? What do you think the money is for? The shareholders??? geeze!

Prasad, if you can tell us: why did you invest in this company?

Bought EUPIC:ATH, European Reliance General Insurance SA http://bovinebear.blogspot.com/2014/06/why-i-bought-european-reliance.html

I am not exactly sure about that entrepreneur's situation but I see it in hi tech all the time. As I get older and I have a better and better system view of things, I see groups of people who can do the most by not existing. But if you didn't see what I see, you'd think they are all key contributors. That's how brilliant people can be at selling themselves. In think we can grow GDP at a high clip still, I don't believe in the new normal. We are using technology to grow GDP, but we still can make better use of human capital all over the world. We must and we will do a better job of rewarding merit. Incidentally, I believe growth will also result in greater income disparity all over the world.

Wow, Prasad must be peeved to rant at midnight! :))

Also it is not liquid, I don't think there is a secondary market for it :))

For a company in north america, can I ask the company to disclose its assets in more detail than on the 10k. For example if a company has investment real estate on the balance sheet. Can I ask for (and get) the address of that real estate? say in a general meeting? What about dark otc companies?

sell calls against what? what you own? And how much would you have to sell as a rule of thumb to protect $X of your portfolio?

You are telling me you think Uber has 1/6 odds of going to $100 bil? How many companies are 100bil today that went IPO in 1990s, and how many tech companies have gone to zero that went IPO in the 1990s? is the ratio 1:6? I didn't make a valuation call. That's the odd that VCs are paying. VC's business model is to make at least 40-50 independent bets. Most will go to 0 and a few will be 100x. The average VC returns are in the teens. Uber is probably the best business model that has come out since Facebook. Is this really crazy relative to Facebook valuation from just a few years ago? No one knows how things will work out in the future so no one is betting the farm on anything. Its all part of a much larger portfolio. If I have to access to this round, I will be happy to gamble 1-2% of my portfolio with the full knowledge that I can lose the whole thing. Higher beta higher uncertainty = smaller bets. I bet you don't play poker. I play almost every week.

I don't think we should think in evolutionary terms, once modern man comes into the picture evolution goes out the window. Otherwise, the most successful people one can argue are those who are the dumbest as they tend to be poor and have more children in any society. I agree that it's less true in this country. I read a few articles on foreign brides. In China, Taiwan, and Korea, if you don't have a good education or own properties, you are very likely to be out of running in the domestic marriage market. Many poor farmers have to go to Vietnam and other even poorer countries to find wives. I am not sure what you mean? What is less true in this country? If you want to discuss the gene pool the actions of a few lawyers or some rich person with a house is a not as great as some uneducated and dumb (I mean genetically dumb) person in Zaire who has 12 children. That person is much more successful than a prof who finds a doctor who has 2 children, even if the children are geniuses. Because that person has spread his genes by 12x whereas the prof is only 2x. BTW sub sahara africa has the highest growth rate in the world. I mean we are at 6 billion (or 7) and we will go to 10billion, when we reach 10billion where are those extra 4+ billion going to come from? mostly from poor countries and mostly from poor people in those poor countries.....

I don't think we should think in evolutionary terms, once modern man comes into the picture evolution goes out the window. Otherwise, the most successful people one can argue are those who are the dumbest as they tend to be poor and have more children in any society. There have been massive changes in our environment that evolution hasn't caught up to yet, but you shouldn't discount evolutionary explanations for our behaviors. We have evolved certain behaviors for a reason, and understanding those reasons can help you understand human behaviors. For example why do women like shopping and men don't? Could it be that shopping is more like gathering and nothing like hunting? Just because there were no shopping malls 40K years ago doesn't mean that it isn't evolution which explains the behaviors. Maybe searching for stocks to invest in is more like hunting (how many women are on this board?). Because our environment is so different from the environment we evolved in, finding evolutionary explanations can be a little like determining how a fish will act out of water, but it can still be quite useful and many times it is the only way to understand the otherwise inexplicable things people do. ABSOLUTELY!! I think in those terms all the time. What I mean is we shouldn't talk about our own success now and in the future in evolutionary terms. We are creating an artificial system where the evolution of prehistoric days do not apply. I mean.... am I a failure if I have no children, is someone with 5 children more successful than someone with 1?

You are telling me you think Uber has 1/6 odds of going to $100 bil? How many companies are 100bil today that went IPO in 1990s, and how many tech companies have gone to zero that went IPO in the 1990s? is the ratio 1:6?

I don't think we should think in evolutionary terms, once modern man comes into the picture evolution goes out the window. Otherwise, the most successful people one can argue are those who are the dumbest as they tend to be poor and have more children in any society.