JayGatsby

One thing I noticed recently is some of these old retail store brands are having trouble transitioning to the totally different shopping experience of the internet. I ordered a Ralph Lauren Polo shirt from Macy's recently and it came in a cheap looking shrink wrapped bag inside of another cheap bag. Once you opened it up it's the same shirt it always was, but it just had a much cheaper feel coming in the Macy's mailer than in the fancy little hardwood floored store within a store. Contrast this to internet brands that have the packaging tailored to evoke a feeling of quality from the second you pick up the box.

I've been trying to wrap my head around UA. Growth so far has been impressive to say the least, although it has slowed. New product launches haven't blown me away.

Civeo (CVEO) is one I'm in that has an interesting, but not free, option on met coal. They provide workforce accommodations (mancamp hotels) for Canadian oil sands (northern Alberta) and Australian met coal (Bowen Basin). Currently doing ~$90M of EBITDA with $365M of debt and $120M of market cap. EBITDA currently split ~60/40 Canada/Australia. I'd previously assigned little option value to Australia but now it seems to have potential. On the call today they said they haven't really seen any new activity out of Australia yet. Probably need oil sands to come back at least modestly to really hit a home run. There's risk that they lose some contracts or renew at lower rates but they've been deleveraging nicely with a 2019 maturity. The dynamic is interesting of i) China not funding cash-negative operations, ii) an industry that has seen little capex for the last few year, and iii) basically inelastic demand. Curious to see what happens with aluminum and oil over the next few years.

Funny thing is most of the people with that degree would consider it a successful end point to be running a boat!

Great interview. Thanks for posting. Seemingly simple strategy, yet rarely replicated.

I'd be curious of the broad strategy of anyone in the "3+ consecutive" category. That's damn impressive.

I'd be curious to know more about their stake in Blackberry (17% common equity ownership if I remember right) if there's a Q/A. I recently sold a big chunk of my holdings while Watsa was buying more.

Any chance of recording the speakers for viewing later?

Based only on this poll, the winner over the last 24 hours of previously undeclared (undecided?) voters was Gary Johnson. Doubt that tells us much but I found it interesting.

We should be careful dismissing an idea because of the person who said it, and should be equally careful accepting an idea because of the person who said it. Consider the logic, not the source.

The movie 13 Hours was an interesting portrayal too. I don't know enough about the situation to really comment, but they claim to have made it as accurate as they could based on first hand interviews. Good movie as well.

I'm not sure why Benghazi gets as much discussion as it does, but the real issue with Hillary and Libya that bothers me was the actual overthrow of Gaddafi. It was her influence that swung the pendulum toward bombing Libya, against the recommendation of the Sec of Defense: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html . What came out of that decision was a failed state that strengthened ISIS and worsened the refugee crisis: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/libya-david-cameron-isis-islamic-state-ultimately-responsible-for-leading-to-collapse-and-rise-of-a7251331.html She may have meant well, but it's her poor judgment that bothers me more than anything. Her rhetoric on Russia sounds straight out of the Cuban missile crisis: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/1/clinton-us-will-treat-cyberattacks-just-any-other-/ . The scariest part there is she regularly blames Russia for hacks when no public evidence exists that the Russian government is behind them.

I think it's basically a vote of "no confidence", with the idea is that enough people do it it gets noticed. Some people have said they're going to stay home this year, but the risk there is that politicians just assume you're not interested. LC said write-in Bernie Sanders, which this election cycle seems like a protest vote against the bias at the DNC ("I may be a democrat, but I'm not going to follow you blindly"). In some states it looks like you can't technically write in a candidate. In that case I guess a Bernie supporter who who wanted to show their dissatisfaction with the process would choose between Johnson, Stein or a smaller party as a protest. The slippery slope of your argument is that at some point the question becomes why vote for anyone who can't win? If you're a Republican in California why even bother to show up?

Since voting on the last thread closed exactly 3 months ago it seemed time for a round 2.

Touche.

I agree. Also think it should include the 3rd parties on 270+ electoral vote ballots (Gary Johnson and Jill Stein). Candidate X might win in a heads up against Candidate Y, but if there's also a Z on the ballot it could change things one way or another (basically the Nader effect).

I mean, objectively she has trapped herself badly. Which fence-sitters are going to actually believe that release at this point? Since they opted for cover-up on multiple occasions now, there is ample reason to actually believe that what is eventually released is just new political spin. They have no leg to stand on against the conspiracy theories and it's all their own fault. She really is in dire straits. This week could feature a trickle of progressively more important democrats voicing the possibility of a replacement. If the first trial balloons take off she could be done for. They really need to get in front of that, but it's hard to see how they will be able to do so effectively. The longer they wait, the harder it will be to promote a replacement too, so some alerted people may panic and undermine her publically in order to force her hand. Interesting times. I'd see Tim Kaine moving to the front of the ticket as a positive development. I'm not sure if Kaine would be the automatic pick or what the process would be. He seems to be more skeptical with regards to use of the military, which is my biggest issue with Hillary: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tim-kaine-congress-has-a-role-in-us-military-action-in-iraq/2014/06/24/77ec1776-fbc8-11e3-b1f4-8e77c632c07b_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.147443cd2f08 The Richmond Times Dispatch, which endorsed Johnson, was positive on Kaine but decided it didn't make sense to endorse someone you disagree with because of their VP.

Seemed like he may be caught a bit in the "just buy cheap" that myself and Buffett (not that we're otherwise at all similar) got caught in at first.

I didn't realize this. So the Iraq War Resolution that Hillary voted for basically delegated authority to declare war to George W? Kind of a loophole where congress didn't formally declare war? According to this, congress at least voted on something for Bush Jr's wars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Declarations_of_war

I go back and forth on 2nd amendment / gun control, but I don't think it's within a president's power to modify. If there's political will / popular support against the 2nd amendment we should vote on an amendment. It makes me uncomfortable when presidents support hollowing out certain aspects of the constitution as it implies a disregard for the document they swear to protect. I think there's a very good argument that we should stop selling semi-automatic rifles, but I don't support doing that any way other than a constitutional amendment. Well that depends on how literally you interpret it. I think having a strict, literal interpretation of the document does more harm than good and is not what it's intended to be. I'm pretty sure the founders didn't intend on allowing the people to own semi-automatic weapons. I'm comfortable with having Executive/Legislature regulate our freedoms. If anything goes out of hand, we have the Courts to protect us. See, I'm not sure of that. Most commentary on the intent of the amendment seems to be that it was some combination of maintaining a strong standing militia (similar to what Switzerland has) and preventing government tyranny. That would imply to me that it was written to allow for military-grade weapons. I think there's a good argument that military-grade weapons have progressed to the point where we no longer wish for people to have them (or at the very least be able to easily obtain them), but I think that's a change of direction from how it was intended and should be enacted through an amendment. I'd vote for that amendment, but I wouldn't want it done a different way. The problem is once we start allowing loose interpretations the whole document basically just becomes symbolic. That's where I really diverge from Hillary/Obama though. My biggest issue with Obama's presidency is the use of military force without a declaration of war as I think is required by the constitution. Part of the benefit of that is it requires the president to come to congress, say "hey here's my rationale and my plan", and then thoroughly debate both parts. Hillary rushed Obama off to war (at least in Libya) without taking the time to go through Congress and now we're suffering the consequences (see tail risks post above re EU disintegration). The Germans took their time, thoroughly debated the question of "what happens when Gaddafi is gone", and decided to abstain from the bombing. Obviously congress isn't always right either, but it helps.

I go back and forth on 2nd amendment / gun control, but I don't think it's within a president's power to modify. If there's political will / popular support against the 2nd amendment we should vote on an amendment. It makes me uncomfortable when presidents support hollowing out certain aspects of the constitution as it implies a disregard for the document they swear to protect. I think there's a very good argument that we should stop selling semi-automatic rifles, but I don't support doing that any way other than a constitutional amendment.

There was an interview the other day where the talking head asked him about his economic / tax plan (after Clinton / Trump had given theirs). He started his answer by clarifying that he's running for president not king so he has to work within the confines of congress. When he talked about a balanced budget he said he'd submit one to congress. He's very critical of Obama's foreign policy that doesn't get a formal declarations of war from congress. He compared the idea that "it's not war, it's just bombs" to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. A lot of policy (education for example) he wants nothing to do with and thinks it should be completely in the state's hands.

I'll use that as my shameless introduction of Gary Johnson to this two party discussion. Only candidate who recognizes the war on drugs doesn't work. I like him mainly because of economic track record. He started a construction company in NM, grew it to 1000 employees, sold it, and became Republican governor of New Mexico (a mainly blue state). As governor he used the veto ~750 times, cut taxes 14 times and left office with a budget surplus. His running mate, Governor Bill Weld of Massachusetts, has a similar track record. They've promised a balanced budget within 100 days and are the only candidates willing to discuss entitlements (they suggest raising the social security age and having a means test). They want to eliminate all income taxes (corp and personal) and replace them with a sales tax, with the main benefit being it would make the US a much more competitive place to have a global company. They recognize that small businesses are really what drives job growth (especially as small businesses become big businesses) and want to make it as easy as possible to start a company. Also the only candidates who support free trade. Main concern with them so far has been that they "can't win" but with the two main candidates as polarizing and scandal-ridden as they are, it seems a bit early to make that call. Anyways, that's the end of my plug. Here's Patrick Byrne (Overstock CEO) with the rest:

+1 on this. It is impossible for a politician, ESPECIALLY one who has been in office as long as her, to not be dishonest or disingenuous to some degree. This is the nature of politics. For all the talk about Sanders and his integrity during this election season, he has also stretched the truth and pandered to public prejudices. Hillary has proven herself to be a very rational thinker and a fighter and she has plenty of experience. Various groups in the Right have pummeled her for decades to the point that the perception of her has deviated massively from the reality. Her most relevant experience, as secretary of state, left the world a significantly less safe place. Libya being the clearest example: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?_r=0 If Gary Johnson were one of the buttons I'd click on him if for no better reason than he's less flawed than the other two individuals.

Any suggestions for books on some of the other characters in the book? Turner, Murdoch, Ergen, anyone else? Murdoch seems especially interesting, although more interested in Fox the broadcast station than Fox News, which a lot of books seem to focus on.