rkbabang

The notion that Apple doesn't believe in moats is absurd. Yes, they are willing to cannibalize existing products with new ones (abandon one moat by digging a new one in a different spot), but Apple's moat is: its design, its high build quality, its eco-system (breadth of products that all work together), its simplicity (all the features that are necessary, but none that are not). Apple has built a brand that stands for all of these things and more. That is its moat.

Would that make you a dummy? I love arguments that start out: If you disagree with what I'm about to say you are stupid.

My house is 246 years old (built in 1768). I don't want a sci-fi roof.

I just need a product like this: http://www.solarreviews.com/news/colored-solar-panels-address-concerns-of-aesthetics-historic-preservation/ Something like this might work for me, if they can get it to look more like roofing shingles. It is still pretty noticeable. http://www.dowpowerhouse.com/

Okay, so how much pre-tax income does that cost you? Solar panels generate a tax-free imputed income stream. The higher your income tax rate, the cheaper residential solar becomes. Take for example the peak 50% income tax rates in California... and you pay your utility bill with after-tax income... One kWh consumed at noon that costs 49 cents on my utility bill in fact costs me 98 cents in income. The higher and higher you jack up my tax rate, the cheaper and cheaper solar looks compared to coal/gas... Unless I purchase a coal/gas fueled residential electric generator... I'd love to try getting a permit for one of those ::) I live in NH, no state income tax at all, nor a capital gains tax, so just federal income taxes. Permits? You don't need no stinkin' permits. I'd love a coal generator, especially if it has some automatic way to feed the coal into it, but I don't think you could install one and not have it noticed. Depending on the noise and how close your neighbors are a gas fired generator in your back yard (or maybe in a small well insulated/soundproofed outbuilding with the exhaust vented out), could probably go unnoticed. http://www.kohlergenerators.com/small-business-generators/generators

That's also an issue for me even if it was affordable. Ideally you'd like the front of your house facing north so that the panels would be on the back side facing south, but the front of my house faces almost exactly due south.

There is no investment if you go with Solar City. Just a lower utility bill ;) Perhaps they are value shoppers and you are the one paying more? Eric, have you signed up for SolarCity? I remember you were looking at some alternatives a while ago, but I don't think you mentioned picking anything.. First, I wanted to put solar panels on the detached garage. I could fit a 10,000 watt system up there (40 250 watt panels). The roof though is "flat". The fire marshall has to sign off on the permit, so I had him out to the house. He wants a 3 foot wide perimeter around the east and north edges of the roof, as well as a 3 foot wide path right down the center of the roof. Suffice it to say, I can only fit a bit less than 1/2 as many panels as I'd like because of him. He's really messing it up. They want to be able to punch holes in the roof to vent it during a fire without walking on solar panels... give me a break... can't I just say "fine, I don't care if you walk on the panels...". So that nixed that idea... or at least I'm not going to come back to the idea quite yet. I couldn't do Solar City because I need to own the house first. I'm still renting with a purchase option. The whole solar lease thing puts a lien on the house -- I can't do that as it violates what the current owner wants. So while it is a sure-fire way to reduce the electric bill with no capital investment, it does require you to be the owner and willing to take on a lien. Not until I own the house first. I do own my house, but I've moved 3 times in the 18 years since I bought my first house. I've never been in any house for more than 8 years. I'm not comfortable with a long term contract and the lien and all of that. I'm going to buy them outright when it makes sense to do so or keep paying 14 cents/kWh for my electricity.

My largest and only TV is 32" too. I guess we're TV brothers :D Only on a value investing board would you find such people, every house I go in besides mine has a monster TV hanging on the wall in every living room. My kids were literately jumping for joy and high-fiving one another when we replaced one of our 2 tube TVs with that 32" HDTV two years ago. We still have the tube TV in the other living room though, I didn't want to get too crazy. That's my experience too. Even the poorest people I know have cable (which we don't have) and a TV larger than 45 inches. We actually bought our 32" as a floor demo with a small scratch on the non-screen part, so we got a discount. It was a good value... I still don't have a flat screen TV, still using an old tube TV. Prices are dropping to the point where I think it's worth it for me to upgrade. My wife really wants one :) What do you guys watch on tube TVs ? All In The Family re-runs. And everything that anyone else watches. I just watched the latest episode of Boardwalk Empire last night on my tube TV. If I ever replace it (maybe soon) I'm looking at these: http://www.amazon.com/TCL-40FS4610R-40-Inch-1080p-120Hz/dp/B00K7NCS9G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1410268501&sr=8-1&keywords=tcl+roku For $330 you get a 40" HDTV with the Roku box built in. We have a 1st gen Roku (no HDMI output) on our tube TV and love it. The so-called "Smart-TV" functionality on our VIZEO 32" HDTV sucks completely. So this is like buying a Roku box for $99 and getting a 40" HDTV for $230. I'm seriously considering it.

You need to buy a building in a downtown location and get the huge "Parsad" sign up immediately.

My largest and only TV is 32" too. I guess we're TV brothers :D Only on a value investing board would you find such people, every house I go in besides mine has a monster TV hanging on the wall in every living room. My kids were literately jumping for joy and high-fiving one another when we replaced one of our 2 tube TVs with that 32" HDTV two years ago. We still have the tube TV in the other living room though, I didn't want to get too crazy.

These are not the only two choices, though. Maybe it's worth the investment on a purely cash ROI, or maybe they care enough about using clean power that it's worth the cost for them. People do a lot of things that don't have good cash returns just because they like those things (do people expect a good ROI on big screen TVs and nice cars?), so it wouldn't be that out of the ordinary. It doesn't have to be about showing off, it can be an entirely internal motivation. You are of course correct. I tend to view everything through a dollars and cents filter, but many people don't. Which is why I have neither solar panels nor a large screen TV (my largest TV is 32", because it does the job and is cheap). I'm sure some people buy solar panels just to feel good themselves about being green.

It's all a matter or price. Solar will become popular first in places where there's the best ratio of current electrical costs to sun. But if in 10-20 years the cost per watt of solar panels is half/a quarter of what it is now, it might make total sense even in New Hampshire... It's a bit like Moore's Law. What made no sense to try to do on computers at a certain time is trivial now just because transistors are cheap. Yes, certainly if the prices for solar continue to drop over the next 10 years at the same rate they have in the last 10 it will become worth it. Like I said, I already see a lot of solar panels around. I wonder if these people already think it is worth the investment, or if they just want to show off how green they are to their neighbors?

I just looked at my electric bill. I pay $0.06383/kWh for "Delivery Charge" and $0.0849/kWh for "Supply Charge" for a total cost of $0.14873/kWh. I, like everyone in New Hampshire, have an old style meter that doesn't know the time of day and can't charge differently for it. I pay the same price 24/7 (just another way those in CA are getting screwed). My rates were even lower when I lived in Massachusetts. Low electricity prices and the fact that there isn't as much consistent sun shine throughout the year here, I don't see how solar makes much sense in the northeast. That said I am always surprised to see solar panels on a lot of roofs around here.

That is not my understanding, at least for your main home: http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc701.html I stand corrected. I wasn't aware of that. I thought the only way to exclude it from taxes was to use it to buy another home.

Yes, completely different. I understand why mortgage isn't deductible (tax code) and why houses are expensive (bubble that hasn't burst yet), but why do banks not offer 30 year fixed loans? (EDIT) A quick google search answered my question. Like most questions about why something in a market doesn't make sense the answer is usually some government law or regulation. Why can't Canadians get 30 year mortgages (but Americans can)?

I realize that not everyone on this thread is in the US, but here not only are 30 year fix rate loans very cheap right now, but you get to pay all of the interest with pre-tax income. In my town for example there are rentals for a decent size home (~3500 sqft) for about $4000/month. You could buy the same home for about $600K, put 20% down and pay about $3800/month (loan of $480K = $2500/mo, property taxes = ~$14K/yr, and insurance = ~$1200/yr) and you get to deduct all of the interest reducing the real price you pay even further. In 20 years you are still paying $2500/mo for the loan + taxes/insurance, and in 30 years you are paying only taxes and insurance. What are you paying for rent in 20-30 years? You don't want to buy at the top of the market, but otherwise renters get screwed in the US. I know that the argument goes that you could grow that $120K down payment fast enough that you could still come out ahead, but if that $120K came from equity in a previous home you sold then it wouldn't be $120K, because you would own capital gains taxes on it if you did not roll it over into another home. Again the tax situation in the US has tremendous benefits to ownership and penalizes anyone who sells a home and starts renting. Rather than sell a home, rent and invest the equity, you'd be better off refinancing the home at 4% to take out your equity and invest that.

I'm reading this thread with fascination. I can't imagine trying to conserve water or even paying for it. I've got an artesian well on my property that gives me all the water I could ever need. And it tastes better than even bottled water, never mind the chlorine/fluoride contaminated water you would get from a municipal water system. I know the weather can be good in CA, but with the taxes, traffic, air pollution, water problems, earthquakes, house prices .... is the weather all that important? Why do you live there?

I got a chuckle out of that. I guess there will be no Sanjeev Holdings. :) Congrats! How about, more simply, Biglunch Holdings. Congrats Sanjeev. It's just not the same when you can't personally charge the company for use of your name.

Hey, I like almonds, get rid of the alfalfa instead. Maybe someone will crack fusion in the next decade and can build a bunch of desalination plants over there.

I got a chuckle out of that. I guess there will be no Sanjeev Holdings. :) Congrats!

If you assume an average of 2 kids per generation. The rich guy has 2 kids, 4 grand kids, 8 great grand kids, 16 great great grand kids, 32 great^4 grand kids, etc.... Then a fortune would have to be absolutely immense to enable more than a generation or 2 to live off of it without productively adding to it.** If they do not productively add to it, then it will be gone in a historically speaking short amount of time. If they do productively add to it, then that will be good for society. **The Rockefeller fortune was truly enormous, $336B in 2007 dollars according to Wikipedia, which is why they are a notable exception, but even that fortune will be gone in time.

The Market Basket strike is finally over, the employees got what they wanted the old CEO has found a way to finance the purchase of the company. Market Basket deal ends bitter feud "business specialists said the company’s employees accomplished a rare feat in halting operations until they got what they wanted. “To have an internal uprising of just about everyone, without a union, is very unusual in American industry,” said David Lewin, professor of management at the University of California, Los Angeles. “And it’s even more unusual for workers to say, ‘We want this guy to come back’ — and to have him actually come back.”" It is going to be difficult for them to get all of their stores stocked back up and running after shutting down for 6 weeks. After long lull, a rush to restock Market Basket stores

I think the reports of scarcity's death have been greatly exaggerated. Certainly many things we now pay for will be as free as air, but there will be markets for all kinds of things, services, entertainment, "human made" goods, vacations, sex, land, art, etc. I would not predict the end of economics any time soon. As far as land/water/population pressures go, when it gets to this point there will be millions (maybe billions) of humans living some place other than Earth. There are many possibilities here. The Moon, Mars, floating cities above Venus, Ceres, Ares, Pallas, other moons, automated swarms of robots mining the asteroid belt and building space station cities that can support tens of millions, etc. If you look beyond Earth there is no shortage of living space, metals, water, or even methane.

Yes, but you and others are missing the points that 1) the maintenance is already accounted for. 2) There is no amount of maintenance you can do on any vehicle or manufacturing equipment which will let you use those things forever. They will need to be replaced in a predictable time-frame regardless of what you spend on them. This isn't the case for buildings. With a reasonable amount of capex (including insurance against disasters) they can last and hold their value indefinitely.

Of course depreciation schedules for buildings are longer than for equipments... This doesn't mean they make sense. I live in an apartment of a condominuim built in the early '60s. And I have always seen its price go up. And it will continue going up for many years to come! ;) Gio My home was built 246 years ago in 1768. The barn was built in the 1850's. Both are in excellent condition. I don't know of any vehicles or manufacturing equipment that are still being used for their original purpose that can say the same.