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"

I hope so too, the city deserves a more successful NBA franchise. However, I don't see them competing with the poise and playoff experience of the Nets, especially now that they've lost home court advantage. At the very least I hope they can extend the series to 6 or 7 games so their team can get some playoff experience under their belt.

That's a fantasy, but Damian Lillard has a really bright future.

I don't believe for a single second that Ted Weschler or anyone else spends 500 hours researching a stock BEFORE investing. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-22/weschler-rise-from-grace-leads-to-role-advising-buffett.html Lets say Weschler devotes 60 hours a week to researching new investments, which is impossible given how much time he must spend on other facets of his job, and also doesn't account for all the time wasted on researching stocks that he later deems unworthy, or that rises while he's researching them. But regardless. Say he works 50 weeks out of the year. 60 (hours a week) X 50 (weeks per year)= 3000 hours a year 3000 (hours a year) / 500 (hours) = 6 new stocks a year. Look at his filings, he invests in more than 6 new stocks a year. He's merely embellishing, big time, in order to impress people.

It benefits society when one invests in a business with a useful product/service- if the business needs the capital. Buying BAC does not help society. We are all just paper pushers in a massively liquid market that is over saturated with smart people doing nothing more than trying to outsmart each other. The stock market doesn't need anymore liquidity or manpower to function. If you are accumulating wealth to donate it in the end, then that is admirable. Investing so you can become wealthy enough to live in a nice zip code and afford expensive travel, this is not morally positive no matter how you spin it. The only way to invest is if you have surplus capital that you do not need to survive. This is money that could be used by others to not die. (I include myself in this criticism. It often causes me great guilt even though I do live modestly)

Honestly I'm surprised I haven't heard more Lost references by people talking about this. This situation is literally the beginning of the storyline- to a tee, just with less white people.

NE, RIG, DO, SDRL, ESV basket.

;D You've got to be kidding me, man. What, you think the thieves stole the BTC and then just retired them, like they were buying back stock? They stole the BTC and then sold them back on the open market for MONEY, because that's the point of stealing them. The supply doesn't change. Because if Bitcoin's price is to continue rising long term, especially at the rate it has in the past, it will have to attract more buyers. It cannot continue to just be owned by criminals and Bitcoin message board enthusiasts. If the general public begins to perceive Bitcoin as a risky thing to own, they won't buy. But that's who you're are going to need to buy. The public image of Bitcoin is a very important thing right now, as the concept is still in its infancy, most people don't know about and/or understand it, and its not a given that it will be around for the long term, unlike most asset classes. Do you really not get why a company voluntarily shutting down a service is not at all comparable to a company seeing their customer's assets stolen? This message board needs more facepalm emojis.

Oh absolutely. Mt Gox finally dying has nothing to do with the viability of Bitcoin. If Microsoft discontinues Hotmail do you give up on email? I think MT Gox going down might well be the trigger for another growth spurt in the price. I think it's highly unlikely for the price to be below $1k by the end of the year by any means. Why is everyone calling for regulation "to keep fraudsters in check"? "Yes, let's stop using Dollars because people sometimes pickpocket each other" would be the equivalent. I fail to see how a company discontinuing an underutilized email service is in any way analogous to 7% of the outstanding Bitcoins being up and stolen from a major exchange. The real damage will come if 60 minutes or some major news program does a story on this that reaches the masses. That's what I'm focused on. You don't want an image of risk and shadiness associated with cryptocurrency amongst the general public. At some point cryptocurrency needs to emerge from the underground. Sure, Mt. Gox situations can be avoided if you read Bitcoin message boards all the time, but how viable is Bitcoin for most people if they have to closely follow message boards just so they can be confident their coins don't get stolen during the night...

Amen. The fact that some people want the US to go to war or make some sort of military strike because of this situation is utter madness.

I disagree. Russia's image went down the toilet way before this, with the whole; lets all beat up the gays - policies. Obama refused to attend the Sochi olympics, because of this. First time a president did that since the cold war I believe. Not to mention the pussy riot fiasco, and how they treat protestors. This was all done while the rest of the civilized world moved in the exact opposite direction in terms of lgbt rights.