rmitz

In this case, I think you’re actually adding his old arguments to this one and it makes you take his tone worse off than it is. I will add; Jurgis is totally right. What you are failing to account for is that the machines are not limited to the kinds of data that as humans we have to deal with. They can see all around the car, react effectively instantaneously, etc. They will also be able to predict these situations (lack of visibility of potential incoming objects) and reduce their speed preemptively to compensate. There’s no contest. All that said, it’s still going to be a pain to get the regs through, but it will happen.

I did not take this test but I have very consistently tested as INTP in the past.

It's a nice tool, I wasn't aware it was still being updated. But you can use it to justify any valuation you care to look for.

I got an Amex only because of Costco. I already shifted to a no-fee card, though, so it’ll just go in a drawer when Costco stops requiring it.

That’s a weird limitation. I guess I’m lucky that my advisor account was pre-2013 as well.

Which is completely misleading since there is an estate tax over a certain amount. So really, it's not a loophole for the people, but just for the government to double tax us. I hate war mongering gun slingers, but I'm voting Republican next year. Excellent, you're making over 500k per year? That's great, but your capital gains rate is already 20% now in that case (plus 3% or so for the ACA). There's no way this can pass. No one expects it to pass. But it's about framing the discussion, setting the terms, something the Republicans have been excellent at over the past 30 years. In great part that's why many people think in conservative terms right now. It's also what you would use in a basic negotiation, ask for terms that you think are too high to start with. But reaching an agreement isn't the goal in this case.

10.3% for the year in my primary account, with 13.74% annualized since the beginning of 2006. A great deal of volatility comes from my very large position in ATSG, so a few days either way can affect the yearly results dramatically.

+1

You can request one for a small fee otherwise. IB is based much more around “pay for what the actual costs are” rather than bundling. I do like that they waived the inactivity fees for accounts over 100k though.

I’ve always picked up local SIM cards when travelling. There’s a good chance if you’re a long term customer your carrier will unlock your phone for you.

With Taxes, probably.

+1 Even including later posts, it doesn’t sound worth it to me.

I think it’s much more likely that she got lucky. She can’t have been the first woman to try. He may have started to realize just at that time that he needed more help for some of these things. To be fair, consider this: she was a new MBA graduate in 2009. During the summer of 2008, she had internship with Lehman Brothers, Bank of America, and 85 Broad (85 Broad is a None-profit organization founded by Women MDs/Partners at Goldman sachs). In 2008, every banks was firing people, nobody was hired. Lehman bankrupted. Yet, she got 3 jobs. And she had no real world work experience, especially in finance(before MBA, she was an undergraduate at harvard). After graduation, she got a job with Warren Buffet when I think she could be the only person in her MBA class who got a job. Let me be clear: I have no doubt she’s good. Very good. But clearly inexperienced. What I mean by luck is that surely many many people along the years, some of whom may have been objectively better (though that’s very difficult to actually measure) would have gotten turned down. That’s life. All of us who have been successful have some measure of luck, though we may do our best to tilt the odds in our favor.

Not in the business but my auto premiums didn't decrease this year (all other things being equal) and home insurance increased a bit. What's new though is that my insurance broker is now charging a 3% interest to people who choose the monthly installments option vs paying upfront (most people do I would think). Was free for the past 15 years. Not sure if this is an industry-wide trend, but clearly it's a way for insurance cos to make up for the poor interests rate available in the market right now. Another anecdote: my home insurance went up ~15% this year due to a base adjustment / revaluation for all of Pennsylvania. I increased my deductible to compensate, though.

I think it’s much more likely that she got lucky. She can’t have been the first woman to try. He may have started to realize just at that time that he needed more help for some of these things.

It seems to be a common assumption that increasing mortgage rates will lead to lower house prices, but recent history does not support this seemingly obvious conclusion. Take a look at the following article from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2012/12/18/when-mortgage-rates-rise-will-home-prices-fall/. About midway, there is a table that lists the six instances since 1976 when mortgage rates increased by one percent or more; in every case, house prices -- as measured by the FHFA index -- increased during the period of increasing rates. Maybe the next time will be different, but given the historical data, it won't be a surprise if house prices continue rising as mortgage rates increase. I could have sworn that values decreased a bit in the late 70s based on some discussions I had. Probably a more local thing then—so remember when dealing with averages, you don’t want to drown in a pool with an average depth of 3ft. There is an amount of stickiness, but this will depend on the rapidity of the interest rate change and a lot of other factors. Pace of homebuying certainly changes—so if you are in a position where you *need* to sell, that’s where the downside comes in.

For many members of this forum renting is probably the best option. I would only buy a house to reduce risk of doing something stupid with the portfolio, but then only when its a small part of my networth (and of course without a mortgage). The average family buys a big mac mansion and in doing so has paved the path to a wealthless future because they can`t afford to save more money and are stuck to the location (I don`t know how high the switching costs in the US are, but in germany you pay more than 10% transaction costs when buying a house). I am pretty sure that a cheap mortgage is counterproductive for them. This has been rehashed several times on this board, but I wanted to comment here that what you're saying is true only if you have a purely economic analysis of home ownership. For me, renting was such an enormous pain in the ass compared to owning my home, with the added control, freedom to be able to do what I want, and peace of mind.

In this scenerio, housing prices would typically have come down (unless you're far into the 30yr mortgage, in which case, probably not worth worring about). That actually provides for even more lock-in on your current home, since you might have lost your equity. Let's say, though, that housing has gone through tremendous inflation in that time somehow, or you're relocating somewhere much cheaper. I think it is possible to simply keep the old home. Not technically allowed on typical contracts, but it's very difficult for the bank to tell (I think), unless you're going to the same local branch for your new loan. Even then they might not care because the loan could have been sold.

It’s probably true that it hasn’t been as profitable as they’d like, but I’d not go so far as to say it isn’t profitable. I would expect they are using the capital elsewhere, but that doesn’t mean it’s not economic. Of course it’s all speculation. I’m happier with FiOS than I ever was with Comcast, but if Google Fiber were available, I’d switch in a heartbeat. Verizon doesn’t run their network to keep their customers happy, they run it with greatest extraction of rents in mind.

FiOS Wasn’t economic? How so? Do you mean they aren’t economic for rural areas? That may be true, but the cities have always subsidized the rural areas for these kinds of things.

I did get that that was what you were saying, but I don’t really agree. Now that these mechanisms are becoming understood, if you can make a profit on *any* sort of tax move, it’s going to be pursued. That wasn’t my point, either. It may wash out (but what an experiment to try without really knowing what’s going to happen!), it might not. Which form of double taxation are you referring to? Don’t corporations get foreign tax credits, so you’d only pay on the difference if it were greater? Sure, agreed on this. Who’s going to give up their exemptions, though?

I don’t really disagree, but the problem is that to be competitive with *all* of the rest of the world, you basically have to eliminate corporate taxes. There are huge problems with this, not least of which that it’s very easy for corporations (Like Berkshire!) to keep reinvesting those profits indefinitely. Yet corporations benefit hugely from infrastructure and governmental assistance, not least of which is by the military might projected throughout the world. A consumption tax would be very difficult to implement in a way such that it isn’t regressive, so it’s a very difficult problem to solve. I’m not saying it’s an easy problem or that we have the ideal situation now—far from it. If someone could snap their fingers and remake the system, we’d *probably* be better off with a lowered rate and closure of preferential benefits. But corporations will *still* leave to shave off a few percentage points of tax, regardless of how low we make them, so it’s an incomplete solution even then. One thing that has always impressed me is the depth Munger and Buffett have to their thinking—but this doesn’t always show up in brief snippets or conversations. There’s lots I’m leaving out here as well, but I think the main point is that any simple sounding solution to a complex problem will be incomplete, at best.

Convenient, that, given that he’d be giving himself and Buffett a massive tax cut.

a great investor is always "wealthier" if he rents. I heard a story (may not be true) that Buffett never wanted to buy a house when he was younger. Having said that, buying a house may keep your wife happy. it may provide a more suitable lifestyle, roots etc. but economically, if you are a great investor, investing the down payment at high rates is what makes you way richer if you rent. Not saying one is better than the other. the thing is great investors can do both and still be extraordinary wealthy. if I was young and also someone who could compound at 20+ rates over long term, I would wait to buy. +1 most people on this board are worse of buying. Especially if what you put down is a large % of your networth. If you have like 5 million then it matters a lot less. I don’t measure wealth only in $$.

You’re right in that it’s just a matter of money. I was recently comparing notes with some friends from CA (LA in particular), and I was absolutely floored with how cheap the water was. That’s the first problem.