rkbabang

I am in chip design as well, and one thing I've noticed is that the Chinese born engineers I've worked with in the U.S. are as smart and competent as any U.S. born engineer, yet working with the Chinese design center on a number of products I agree with everything randomep has been saying. I've always assumed that it was the schools, because the Chinese born engineers that I've worked with here in the US have degrees from U.S. universities.

"Elon Musk appears to have taken to his official Twitter account to accuse a former Air Force official of having "likely" accepted a bribe to grant the exclusive black sat launch contract to United Launch Alliance." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/23/musk_air_force_ula_spy_sat_launch_contract/

SAM is one I found early, I bought it at $21.50 in 2005, and sold way too early ($113 in 2012). I unfortunately no longer own it.

I just tried it, google then hit images. That is odd. What does google think BH stands for? Big Hooters?

Musk Takes On Boeing, Lockheed, GenCorp and the U.S. Air Force It's hard not to like this guy, he's got chutzpah.

Look at the market caps of the largest companies 20 years ago compared with today. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that in 2034 there will be a company with a $2.6T-$2.8T market cap. And if you do the same for 30 years ago you could assume that in 2044 there may be a company with a $3.5T-$4T market cap. Still 50X seems like a stretch for TSLA from here, but combine extreme growth with inflation and maybe stock buybacks and re-invested dividends (at some point) and it may be possible.

All electronics companies can produce smartphones and can do it cheaper than Apple.

I disagree. Look at that above list. At least half of them where household names. I'm not sure about Walgreens in the 1960's, but certainly Exxon, Coke, and Microsoft were. I wasn't born yet in the '60s, but as a kid/teen in the 1980's I had heard of all three. So while some of the stocks that will return 50X in the next 20 years are not household names right now, half of them probably are. But none of them are obvious right now, else we all would already own it.

It's a little late this week, but I have a wonderful opportunity for you that could earn you a fortune. If you send me all of your money I will invest it and let you know how much profit I've earned you by the end of next week. You could earn 100000% in a week1. Don't let this once in a lifetime opportunity pass you by! *100000% is used as example of one possible outcome, returns are not guaranteed. Loss of entire principle is highly likely.

Envy is one of the worst qualities in human nature. It doesn't matter one bit to most people that a rising tide lifts all ships, if someone else still has more. Many people really would rather be close to starvation-poor, just as long as everyone else was as well.

If anything he underacted the guy :D Had to turn it off a few minutes in tho. The guy is just dripping with narcisism If he's going to make $100M in one year as a motivational speaker, someone must enjoy listening to him.

I did some high quality research for you and will provide it here for free. I googled "is ready to pop". You might find these links helpful in making your investing decisions. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=102163436 http://www.thestreet.com/story/12697656/1/this-relative-strength-play-is-ready-to-pop.html http://noisey.vice.com/pt_br/blog/liz-is-ready-to-pop http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gene-marks/the-hartfords-ceo-this-ec_b_4042078.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10270901/BoE-Governor-Mark-Carney-is-ready-to-pop-any-housing-bubble-and-warns-traders-bets-on-rate-rises-are-way-off.html https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100611121037AAfkOGq You're welcome.

Quite the generalization .. how about some names of these execs who are shouting and screaming at each other? Newly rich behave like the tech execs I mentioned, and others like say Buffet and Bill Gates who earned most of their money. Old money behaves like Paris Hilton, The Marriott sisters, and a host of other spoiled rich kids. (Kids in the Johnson & Johnson inheritance feud) Speaking of shouting at one another and behaving without refinement: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/06/06/the-10-most-infamous-family-inheritance-feuds/ In any case this is kind of a useless argument because there is a large enough sample set that one could find an example of just about anything to support one's point of view. There are going to be spoiled Rich kids, refined responsible inheritance kids, newly rich people who think they are the gift of God, and really rich people who want to change the world, and to do good. If you have any actual studies, That would be more interesting and perhaps more convincing. I think that ultimately it comes down to the individual's character and in particular also whether they acknowledge the role of luck and Fortune in their situation. For particular individuals I think it's worth asking whether their hard work and success has brought arrogance, but I don't think it's fair to make a blanket statement that tech execs and particular ones in Silicon Valley, Of which you have still not named any, or any other new money somehow always acts arrogantly by default. Now if you're talking about sports, you will also find arrogant idiots who just got rich, as well as more refined individuals. Although I would agree that there tend to be more of the former than the latter, although that might be biased as well since you will clearly hear more about the former than the latter... Yes, you can find respectable people and not so respectable people in both the new and old money crowds. The only conclusion I draw from this is that, regardless of background, some people are idiots and some aren't.

Seems like a good value. It has a moat. "The luxe home in the gated Brentwood Country Estates is eco-friendly and includes eight bedrooms, a six-car garage, and a moat."

This is a modern day minstrel show. It is a disgrace. Old white guys telling young black men how to be. The irony is delicious. Nothing wrong with a little NWA in the morning to get your day going, in my opinion. I've never liked the early 80's/90's rap very much, but I did love Ice-T's metal band "Body Count". I still have "Cop Killer" on my iPod.

Well he's gone from "F-- the Police" to "F-- the Investment Taxes" in no time. Both sentiments I would agree with as well. I think the Beats acquisition makes sense for Apple. It is a profitable brand, it is an area that (besides earbuds) Apple isn't in, yet I'd bet most people with Beats are plugging them into an Apple product (either an iPad, iPhone, or iPod). If Apple wanted to get into selling on-ear or over-ear head phones they would have to compete with Beats, who already makes a fashionable/cool product, Apple iHeadphones would look like a me-too product in that space. And it's only $3B, so why not?

This is further proof of what I said above. If you read the article carefully you will notice that people say that growth is more important than equality, but what they support are government policies that impede growth in an attempt at furthering equality, such as increasing minimum wage and increasing taxes. If you want to know what someone really believes, ignore what they say they believe and look at what they do (or want to do, in this case).

Yes, but you are missing the point. To the vast majority of people the reference point isn't the entire prior history of humanity, it is the rich people who have more than them right now today. It doesn't matter if the average person in America is far better off than 99.999999% of the people who have every lived, or even if they are wealthier than 95% of the people on Earth right now, if someone else has a lot more. It is human nature. And it isn't only lower or middle income people who think this way, you have people on Wall Street outraged that they only got a $9M bonus this year when someone they work with got $14M. People would rather everyone, including themselves, be far worse off and equal, than live with the fact that someone else has more.

Fruit of the Loom obviously. They're already moving in that direction with the Berky Boxers, next will be the Berky Tighties, then the name change.

I do hear a lot of talk about a carbon tax though. This would be just a bundle of cash sucked out of the economy and into the general coffers to be pissed away. It wouldn't help the situation and could delay the development of real technologies that would. If nothing else it would make us all poorer and slow progress in the developing world as well. We went through our polluting stage and are now making progress on renewables, recycling, and conservation, the best thing we can do for the planet is get the developing world through its industrialization stage as quickly as possible. Getting rid of trade restrictions, protectionism, and tariffs will do more for the planet in the long run than just about anything else the government could do. "I do hear a lot of talk about a carbon tax though. This would be just a bundle of cash sucked out of the economy and into the general coffers to be pissed away." Yes. Borrowing from the other thread, we could call is the "Bank for America Carbon Tax" -- suck it and piss it away...with the "right" people taking a good skim. 5 to 10% of $100 billion per year seems fair. An annual tobacco settlement kind of thing. Btw, where does the money from the bank settlements really go? -- seriously (not the money to homeowners). Anyone know? When the mob requires you to pay protection money so that they can "protect" your neighborhood, where does the money go? Now you have your answer. There is a good reason that the Washington D.C. area is becoming the wealthiest region in the United States. Why create wealth when you just can take it?

That's exactly what I did, but used 7.4 billion rather than 7.4 trillion. Oops!

I do hear a lot of talk about a carbon tax though. This would be just a bundle of cash sucked out of the economy and into the general coffers to be pissed away. It wouldn't help the situation and could delay the development of real technologies that would. If nothing else it would make us all poorer and slow progress in the developing world as well. We went through our polluting stage and are now making progress on renewables, recycling, and conservation, the best thing we can do for the planet is get the developing world through its industrialization stage as quickly as possible. Getting rid of trade restrictions, protectionism, and tariffs will do more for the planet in the long run than just about anything else the government could do.

Yes, but the time scale for stocks is different than for climate. A year in stocks is like 100+ for climate. So looking at it over a decade is just noise. It's like saying stocks went down over the last 30 days so that will be the trend from now on. In reality we don't really know what the effects of the high CO2 levels are going to be exactly, which global processes will dampen or accelerate the changes, how and exactly when real irreversible problems will all take place (some people claim that it already has and we are already doomed), and how much technological changes in the mean time will allow us to stop or fix the problem in the future. So far many of the short term predictions have been wrong. This is used by the deniers to say the whole thing is bunk, but the global warming activists continue to trumpet gloom and doom short term predictions that they have little real basis for, cheering every time there is a month warmer than average, while the other side cheers every time we have a cold winter. Some progress is being made with renewable energy and I expect this to increase. Things like fusion energy or nanotechnology may actually be around the corner (15-50 years). The only thing I am certain of is that if this is a problem that needs to be solved, and it probably is, government is the last place we should look for its solution.

According to http://www.unitjuggler.com/convert-forex-from-NLG-to-USD.html 1 Dutch Guilder is worth $0.62818181818182 So 78M of them is worth about $48M. If my calculation is correct to turn $48M into $7.4T in 364 years you would need an inflation rate of about 1.4%. EDIT: I screwed up: it's 3.3%. See below.

The other problem with the main stream global warming people that I have is not only are they looking to advance their own political agenda (whatever gives the government more money and power is exactly what we need to save the world), but there is always an underlying thread of anti-humanism going through everything they do and say, a lot like the neo-Malthusian population alarmists and environmentalists in general. Some going as far as publicly wishing for the mass deaths of innocent people. "As a communicator myself, I’d like nothing better than for thousands of middle-class white people to die in an extreme weather event—preferably one with global warming’s fingerprints on it—live on cable news. Tomorrow. The hardest thing about communicating the deadliness of the climate problem is that it isn’t killing anyone. And just between us, let’s be honest: the average member of the public is a bit (how can I put it politely?) of a moron. It’s all well and good for the science to tell us global warming is a bigger threat than Fascism was, but Joe Q. Flyover doesn’t understand science. He wants evidence. Cognitologist C. R. R. Kampen thinks the annihilation of a city of 150,000 people might just provide the teaching moment we need."