Orange

So many gems in this thread but this one takes the cake. Just a "taxi service with an app" You realize uber has like 2 or 3 thousand software devs working for them? Wicked smart silicon valley developers, many of which are working on developing self driving cars. "Just a taxi with an app" You realize they have 75 million paying users, and 3 million drivers. But their business model isn't about network effects? What the hell is wrong with you guys, lol. How about this, go hire some developers, make an app, get everyone in the world to know about it, have your brand name become better known than the service itself ("Uber" is a better known word with consumers than "rideshare"), then bring 75 million paying customers together with 3 million people providing them a service. How easy would that be to replicate?

It's a hell of a lot easier to reproduce licenses trucks and warehouses. It's really just a matter of deploying capital. Having a food delivery brand that's a household name... with millions of customers, thousands of restaurants, and a legion of contractor delivery people all coming together... you can't just throw money at that and make it happen. It is f*cking hard. That's what a real moat looks like my friend. I think you might want to step away from the chemicals and get some fresh air.

Exactly. It's also a matter of size. For a company as large as Amazon, with their revenue and access to capital, it's not that big of a deal to buy some bankrupt retail assets when the opportunity presents itself.

Thank you for sharing this. The pizza arbitrage anecdote is funny, and I certainly wouldn't invest in a company like Doordash, but I'll play devil's advocate because this piece is very opinionated and short-sited. These companies are trying to build a platform with enormously powerful network effects, to become a household name and a major player in a massive global industry like food delivery. Think about the rewards of that if they succeed... To have a seriously durable competitive advantage in such a large market - a business model that is essentially a toll road for restaurant food delivery... think about how incredibly valuable that could be once the market has matured and cost of customer acquisition falls. It might actually be worth blowing through half a billion a year for a while, while the opportunity exists to corner part of this market. Investing is about laying out money today, not in hopes of making money today, but making money in the future. I think the VC's understand the long term risk reward at play here better than these writers, who are too preoccupied with spinning up articles and tweets that stir up readers, but offer little in the way of insight. That's my 2 cents

Walmart will find a way to automate many of the jobs they offer if the minimum wage is drastically increased. Low or no skill minimum wage jobs are the easiest to automate. Cashiers are already starting to get fazed out. The nearest Walmart to me has 8 self checkout stations (supervised by only 1 employee), so they already have developed and put in place some of the technology to automate. The losers in a drastically higher minimum wage scenario aren't Walmart, they are small businesses who cannot afford the technology that replaces low skill workers, and of course the newly unemployed workers themselves.

I dream of a day when everyone is wealthy enough that they no longer need to watch reality TV. I dream of a day when everyone is wealthy enough that they can make to-do lists for themselves. Obviously I said many of the habits, not all. So your cherry picking hasn't achieved much. But by all means, keep doing everything you can to preserve your needlessly black and white ideology. I'm going to do something more productive with my time. Hey, I think there's a Pawn Stars marathon on.

Because this dude is a financial advisor. He deals with rich clients all day. He was interviewing his clients.

http://www.richhabitsinstitute.com/about-rich-habits-thomas-corley-bio/ This is all from the book: http://www.amazon.com/Rich-Habits-Success-Wealthy-Individuals/dp/1934938939 Sample size: 233 rich people, 128 poor people. In interviews he's said he basically asked them questions, so these statistics are self reported. This was not a peer reviewed study done by a scientist or researcher. And the people he was asking are most likely his wealth advising clients, so the statistics are horribly biased. This is why so many of the stats look utterly strange. And many of the bad (good) habits are a result of being poor (rich), not the other way around. For example, it's well known amongst obesity researchers that lower income people in the US are generally heavier and consume more junk food, mainly because junk food is much cheaper. Raman noodles and a bag of Doritos are much cheaper than grilled salmon and kale. Being able to afford a gym membership, personal trainer, and a huge grocery bill at Whole Foods-these are not a cause of wealth, but an effect of having it. These statistics were compiled to sell books, not obtain truth.

The price that the Clippers sold for is high, but for good reason. Next year they will be a heavy title contender. They were probably the 4th best team in the league this year. They've got one of the best coaches, two franchise players, including a 25 year old who is already MVP caliber, and a pretty solid bench that includes the 6th man of the year. They are stealing a lot of fans and attention from the Lakers, and this will continue, as the Lakers will probably suck for at least another couple of years, while the Clippers will improve. They are in a huge media market. Elite NBA players in Los Angeles get lots of endorsement deals and national attention. LA is a city that big name free agents generally want to play in. If they can win a championship in the next 4 or 5 years (which is a real possibility), the stigma of their losing past will be lifted. If that happens, I can see them becoming one of the leagues more popular teams. Ballmer didn't get a bargain, but I don't see this as grossly overvalued either.

Slippery slope fallacy.

That is a great point. In most strategies that have long term holding horizons, the average investor usually makes some money over the long term. And even if you don't, its pretty damn hard to get wiped out as a value investor, especially if you're diversified. The average day trader seems to get wiped out pretty quick. The problem with any activity is, you're going to be below average or average at it for a while when starting out. Unless you're planning on paper trading for years and years as you build your system, taking up day trading is a pretty dumb thing to do.

Nicely done. Kraven's disciple.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/105-climate-science/ http://www.reddit.com/r/climate I'm not trying to stop the debate on this thread, but in addition to the debate here, you guys should take your concerns with climate science to these forums. I think it would be healthy to hear from some people who actually work in the field.

I tend to agree. 20 years post Buffett, I don't see the culture remaining, especially when you consider the problems he's already had with managers recently. Berkshire will be worth more broken up after Buffett passes.

The answer to all those questions is either "none/neither of them" or "the first Darrin"