rkbabang

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."

It was bad enough when Al Gore called me " immoral, unethical and despicable". But now I learn I am a bigot! Damn, what a bad week I'm having! Oh well, it will all be over soon: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/al-gores-10-year-warning-only-2-years-left-still-no-warming/ I'm in the camp that there is global warming and that the evidence shows that it is anthropogenic, but Al Gore (as are many of the global warming people) is very much motivated by political ideology rather than science. Anyone who is going to make a short or medium term projection about the weather, temperature, or sea level on the order of a decade is an idiot not a scientist. Even the smartest investor on earth can not tell you what the S&P500 will be in ten years, and that would be an easier task with fewer variables.

A good read on the issue: Beware the Counterattack Against Activist Investors: The Group Trap "courts have established that the issue of group activity is a “question of fact.”1 In the leading case of Morales v. Quintel Entertainment, Inc ., the Second Circuit parroted the statute and held that the “key inquiry” is the question of whether the members of the alleged group “agreed to act together for the purpose of acquiring, holding, voting or disposing of” their stock. There, the Second Circuit also made clear that “the agreement may be formal or informal and may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence.” Also, “the alleged group members need not be committed to ‘acquiring, holding, voting, or disposing of equity securities’ on certain specified terms, but rather they need only have combined to further a common objective regarding one of the just-recited activities.”

My gut tells me that if you are acting as a group and collectively own more than 5% of the outstanding shares you need to make it official to avoid trouble. "When two or more persons agree to act together for the purpose of acquiring, holding, voting or disposing of equity securities of an issuer, the group formed thereby shall be deemed to have acquired beneficial ownership, for purposes of Sections 13(d) and(g) of the Act, as of the date of such agreement, of all equity securities of that issuer beneficially owned by any such persons." http://www.law.uc.edu/sites/default/files/CCL/34ActRls/rule13d-5.html

Interesting idea. I imagine it shouldn't be too difficult to create some serious voting power with the purchase power of this forum, especially with those microcap or nanocap. However, how do you define a "group". Will people communicate with each other through an internet forum loosely be viewed legally as a group? Any lawyers here? I don't see how it's any different from 20 partners having a conference call or meeting at a restaurant, yet for some reason I feel the SEC or whomever may not feel the same way. One thing to consider is that when you have a meeting at a restaurant there is no public record of what was said. On an internet forum it remains there in its entirety and is searchable for anyone interested for any reason to find and read.

Shareholders can form a group and register with the SEC as "active" shareholders to attempt to drive change in a company.

Sure. I consider the basic paradigm of QM to be largely settled and very solid. This is because there is spectacular agreement between experiments and predictions. And there are thousand upon thousand of really nice experimental predictions. Also every single prominent skeptic was forced after loudly kicking and screaming to admit that QM is correct!!!!!!!!!!!!. I have a special place in my heart for QM skeptics like Bohm, Jaynes and John Bell. Bohm hated QM and you can read his book on QM to see him poke holes in it. Jaynes hated QM so much that he came up with an alternative "less quantumy" theory to explain photon emission and absorption. These guys spend their lives attacking QM and coming up with alternatives. But the evidence was too much for them and both conceded defeat. This is NOT true for climatology. John Christy, Richard Lindzen and of course many of the greatest forecasters the world has ever known, weathermen, are prominent skeptics. +1 How about dark matter, dark energy, inflation, etc. Yes, I know the evidence, but I still don't buy it. It just doesn't sound like the right explanation to me. Although I'm sure this is exactly how the anti-quantum mechanics people felt.

Yes 2 (8%) No 11 (44%) Hmm, to the 13 people on this board that believe that they can predict the immediate future: What will the winning lottery numbers be this week?

I vote Palantir for "Most disturbing profile picture." Yes can I vote Palantir change his profile pic. It has honestly tainted my perception of him, and I've never met him :) LOL I feel the same way. I don't mind Palantir's profile pic as much as muscleman's. :P You're the 2nd one to mention that you are envious of muscleman. That doesn't bother me, I wouldn't mind if I looked like that. There is just something that doesn't sit right with me about a balding fat old guy sticking his tongue out at me every time I see one of palantir's posts. Like I said before...disturbing.

In the opposite direction. To be honest, about the only thing that would be worse would be Pony the Orangutan Prostitute. http://www.freewebs.com/animalorangutan/photos/Pony-the-Orangutan-Prostitute/pony.bmp

I vote Palantir for "Most disturbing profile picture."

Market is fairly but not overvalued only if we reach the same euphoria that we did back in 2000 and 2007. Do you have the number from 1998? I think the current macro condition is more similar to 1998 than 2000 - Russian/Asian crisis, low interest rate, etc. With 1998 included: If you had $1000 do you think investing in the it in stocks would be a good idea? DATE Good Idea Bad Idea 2014 Jan 46%50% 2007 Apr50%46% 2000 Jan67%28% 1998 Apr65%28% Do you, personally, or jointly with a spouse, have any money invested in the stock market right now? DATE Yes No 2014 Jan 54%44% 2007 Apr65%34% 2000 Apr62%37% 1998 Sep60%39%

It looks like we don't quite have the enthusiasm for stocks that we had before the last two large crashes. From: Gallup.com Stock Market polls If you had $1000 do you think investing in the it in stocks would be a good idea? DATE Good Idea Bad Idea 2014 Jan 46%50% 2007 Apr50%46% 2000 Jan67%28% Do you, personally, or jointly with a spouse, have any money invested in the stock market right now? DATE Yes No 2014 Jan 54%44% 2007 Apr65%34% 2000 Apr62%37%

They don't look all that hated to me. SWHC 2yr chart

+1 Bingo!

It is usually a good idea to come off as condescending when trying to explain something. It creates the right tone and environment for explanation and learning. So you are saying sarcasm is more effective? :) But yes, you are correct (or at least the opposite of what you wrote being what you meant is correct) , I should have left all of that out of my post.