SouthernYankee

I lived in San Francisco for 3-1/2 great years, a good buddy of mine owns a gelato place out there still. LA COPA LOCA, check it out! Tell him a guy from New York sent you, hopefully he will still serve you. Just kidding!

Repeat after me: It is not your fault! To all college graduates who need a job, if you can repeat those 5 words over and over, there are plenty of jobs which are about to be "created". Wait until Waxman, Schumer, and that ilk read about this! Oh boy, the class-action industry has been waiting a long time for this!!! Pathetic.

I can't think of where I saw this posted, but I found it again on YOUTUBE. Seems like this problem has been around for a while.

"Well said Packer, but I haven't seen even the Tea Party talking about some of the root problems on "Wall Street"." -Root problems? How about huge financial bail-outs for firms that were levered 100-1, and no one loses their job? How about quasi-government agencies telling banks how to lend money? How about the media not reporting on which politicians received the most money from Wall Street because it doesn't fit the narrative? The TEA PARTY says plenty about these problems, and most members of the Tea Party would probably look to go back to Glass-Steagal, as long as you get rid of Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, the Community Re-investment Act (CRA), etc. The Tea Party talks about the corruption inherent in Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae/Sallie Mae. These children down on Wall St should be arrested for trespassing and disorderly conduct. If they want to march every day, follow the law, get the permits required, make sure you clean up after yourself. And now, for your amusement: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46683

Ericopoly, I was trying to make a joke, TRYING being the operative word! McDonald's is not my usual place for meals. I was just trying to highlight another government program, which, if the 1-in-4 starving kid statistic is taken as true, does not do what it is supposed to do. Which is the reason why conservatives do not UNDERSTAND Mr Buffett's fascination with this President or his policies. THEY HAVE ALL BEEN TRIED BEFORE, AND WE KEEP GETTING THE SAME RESULTS!

That 1 in 4 statistic is pretty interesting as well. As far as I know, most public education systems throughout this country spend a lot of money on breakfast and lunch programs for the students, yet 1 in 4 are still going hungry. Maybe we should give that money to McDonalds or Denny's instead. Cutting the overhead would be one savings, and a nice GRAND SLAM BREAKFAST or a SAUSAGE BISCUIT w/ EGG beats cafeteria food any day! Buffett might buy Mickey D's common stock if that happens!!!

"We all rely on government (in part) to feed our families as noted by Martin Whitman in his most recent shareholder (Third Avenue) letter. Also, Malcolm Gladwell in his book, "Outliers"." I guess another reading assignment has been handed down by the professors who inhabit this site. I can say that I do rely on government for certain things, they do maintain the infrastructure (for the most part) and keep the peace (again, for the most part). The taxes I pay go to help pay for those things. I am not an anarchist. I simply believe that each individual born in this country, and every immigrant who comes here, should be told over and over that no one is responsible for their well-being except for themselves. For an individual to receive aid from the government, you should have to prove your need, on a continuing basis. I will look up those suggestions as well, to see what those very intelligent people are saying. Thanks for the tips.

I am surprised that I missed this "political" discussion, but I am sure the "Greek gods" have had their say. As a conservative Republican, one who does not consider himself to be of a certain class, but does enjoy the FREEDOM of not relying on Big Brother to feed his family, I do not hate Buffett at all. In fact, I tell my liberal friends about him all the time, when speaking about someone with a great way to invest money. But when it comes to politics, I will rely more on the outlook of our Founding Fathers than on the opinions of Warren Buffett. The founding of this nation was based upon the INDIVIDUAL. As Munger would say, simplify.

"It makes me laugh that we literally poured hundreds of billions (maybe trillions in total) into what was essentially a pissing contest between world powers. There was no real practical purpose to sending a man into space or the moon. Some might argue the externalities (technology) made it worth it but we probably could have had twice as much innovation if we had just directly invested in innovation instead of just capturing externalities." The difference MIGHT be that the US government SET A GOAL, as opposed to telling the American people HOW TO GET TO THAT GOAL. It seems when our government allows private enterprise and private citizens (INDIVIDUALS) to PURSUE something, the American people respond. It is a little insulting to categorize Republicans as those who "only support government spending if it makes us better at killing foreigners" (Your statement about Democrats I'll decline to respond to). I support government spending when there is a clear goal that is within the federal governments powers, and the powers that be will NOT try to pick winners (Solyndra).

A discussion about this book in this forum should be very interesting. My own opinion is great book, pretty "hard" (in tough love way), a little unrealistic once TV came about, and I can see how a person who grew up in a less free society would love it! We take our liberties for granted; I am glad there is a movement in the United States for people to stay more involved with the political process. Cheers.

One of the great things about the book was the reaction from the reporters who cover sports. A lot of them hated it, because Billy Beane was removing (trying to) the emotional aspects of scouting and trying to make it into more of a science (numbers and outcome based). Sounds like value investing, no?

Prediction: Hayek won't get much of a response here.

Thanks to Myth and JSArbitrage for promoting a free and open exchange of ideas! How much revenue will be raised if you institute Buffett's ideas? His OPINION piece is big on percentages, but negligent on whole numbers. Will this influx of tax dollars (assumption) put a large dent into the existing yearly budgetary deficit? I would gladly close loopholes and redefine hedgies carry rule, IF Congress would CUT FIRST! At least cut back to pre-stimulus amounts, that would be a start!!

That is what I am asking. Why would they ban short sells, as long as they are done in a legal manner? (Didn't Walter Schloss make a bundle off of a Yahoo short?) And why don't they enforce the ban on NAKED shorts, which, if I can infer, is when you don't own (or borrow) the stock beforehand? (is that correct?) It seems like another instance where regulators (and/or politicians) want to look like they are doing something/anything, when all they have to do is enforce existing statutes/rules/regulations. Thanks for the explanation.

Can someone explain a short sale? I understand that the person who sells short believes (hopes?) the stock price will go down, but isn't there a REQUIREMENT that you own (or is it borrow?) the stock first? Or is that Naked short selling, which I thought was already illegal, but is never enforced (I have no idea why that is, or if it is true).

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/medical/womenshealth/story/2011/08/Federal-health-department-approves-free-birth-control/49755156/1 This may affect the market a little bit, as well as making premiums more expensive for all who have health insurance. And for those with moral objections, good luck fighting this administration. And all those who are prone to deciding which topics should be spoken about on a business/investing blog, I hope this meets YOUR requirements. Cheers.

I have not tried to put anyone on any side. If you read my posts, I explained why I ask those simple questions (so we find something to agree on) and why I have kept quiet about stocks and bonds and such (most people on here have more knowledge). To call me a the straw man one triock pony guy, saying that I spout talking points, is a bit unfair. How is asking, or pointing out, that this government says "cut" when thay increase spending by 5% instead of 6% bitching about government!? How is pointing out that regulations being implemented by the bureaucratic part of the Executive branch will affect me, my family, and my business bithcing about government!? My company has not laid off one worker in the last 3 years, but my salary has been stagnant and bonuses non-existent! And I think that the policies set forth by the President and the Democratic congress are, at least, partially responsible. And Bush was terrible as well, but on a scale a lot less than Obama. Obama has done everything he said he would do, though not as fast as he would like. TRANSFORMATION (Obama's word) takes a long time I guess!

To Hawk Opinion means something is open to debate. And you are able to have yours, and I gladly read your comments, as I might learn something. The one remark you made about only seeing everything day to day, though, is where you may misunderstand those who have that "FoxNEWS" opinion. The United States is young, FDR's policies have been around for only 75 years or so. The perspective, a long-term perspective, as opposed to what you think, is what worries a lot of people. Roman empires, Greek empires, Egypt, Persia, China, Mayans, Incas - history has plenty of evidence of tyranny and centralized control. There is precious little history of republics, and Bill of Rights, and Magna Cartas. So when "HERO MEMBERS" like the Myth say "or just leave", you get a glimpse into how and why we are this stage. My question about 3.5<>3.6<>3.7 was a valid one, my opinion that Obama, Boehner, Reid, Pelosi, and McConnell are political hacks is just that, an opinion. Just today, we had the head of the HHS, Sebellius, mandate that private insurers will pay for female contraception. HELLO, my premiums are now going up, even though my wife and I would love to have another child. That means that President Obama, directly, since he is the head of the Executive branch is making my life and my companies existence harder. When your government has the power to do that, you are on the "road to serfdom".

Speechless! (smiles all around)

Parsad, That is why I like to stick to SIMPLE questions at first, so that you start out agreeing with each other. The simple question for you is this: When does the duly-elected President of the United States become responsible for his actions? Another question which I need you to answer: Which conservative fiscal ideology tries to equalize disparity in income and wealth?

And I do apologize for not participating more when it comes to stocks and bond questions, I simply do not feel comfortable enough with the limited knowledge which I have. I can say, I have done pretty well with some issues, and find the conversation very stimulating. I will try to improve my questioning technique (maybe I should hit preview first!), but please give me the benefit of doubt and know that I am trying to see both sides of an issue. It simply helps me to know what is considered fact, and what is considered opinion, and to find that out, simple questions are asked. Thanks.

Liberty, I posed the question in that manner, a simple question with an answer we all know, to find some common ground. The answer, of course, is that 3.6 is bigger than 3.5, but the "leaders" in DC will call that a CUT because they had originally offered a 3.7 number. My point in all of these discussions, is to highlight the fact that no matter what policies you prefer, the money we are spending is a lot larger than what is being taken in. So when these politicians speak about cuts, it is all BS. The only members really speaking about cuts, or simple budget FREEZES, are those members of Congress who are characterized here (by some of you) and in the media, as those RADICAL, ANTI-GOV'T, let-it-all-crash TEA PARTY republicans. IT IS NOT A GOTCHA QUESTION, it was a SIMPLE question by a SIMPLE man, who looks at numbers and words they use in the media and in print (TRILLIONS, for gosh-sakes) and my head spins! HOW MANY ZEROS, and that is not only for the total budget, but for the fiscal years DEFICIT as well!! And to my dear Kraven, I do not post to simply get a rise out of others. I am trying very hard to see the other side of the issue, where continued deficit spending will actually be good for the United States, and where programs like Soc Security and Medicare will continue to take my money when I know it will not be there in 30 or so years. But all I keep getting is Bush this, Republicans that, Tea Party is crazy. Those are not answers to my simple questions, they are emotional responses to a problem that is not being solved by the usual LORD KEYNESIAN actions!

Glad to see the board could carry on a politics conversation without a "troll" being present! One question: If the 2011 budget is 3.5 trillion, and the budget for 2012 is 3.6 trillion, but was supposed to be 3.7 trillion, does that mean that the politicians in DC cut the budget for 2012? (My son (8 years old) said, "Dad, why are you asking me that question, you KNOW 3.6 is bigger than 3.5!")

I have been called many things, just don't call me "late for dinner"! http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/25932 Here is that link, with a little extra irony! Should I be smiling when our President isn't sleeping? Cheers, and have a great weekend!!

I will find the link to the Treasury where all those who love giving their money to the US GOV'T can make their donations. Cheers.